The U.S. and Iraq

Pages

AuthorTopic: The U.S. and Iraq
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #25
Whatever the true reason was for the war, the reality is that it was sold to Congress and the American public largely on false pretenses, lubricated by the climate of fear generated by September 11th. There was never any truly "just" rationale for this "intervention," however.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 11:56: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #26
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:
Originally written by Redstart:

I share your concerns about how this will all look decades from now Alec, but you should remember that history is not written only by Americans. With the attention this whole travesty has received, bystanders (meaning countries not directly involved in the war or occupation) will have a whole lot more information to write their history books with. Iraq will be remembered for what it was.
What don't you remember "there is only those who are with us and those who are against us"?

Silly Alec, have you forgotten? History is written by the Zionist Council as it has been for the past 5000 years. Of all people, you were the last I'd expect to forget that. Oh, and yes, I do plan on eating Christian blood with great relish in the coming Passover holiday.

I don't blame you; Christian babies are delicious.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #27
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I'm surprised, Alec. You're apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept of liberal "revisionist" history. Not all history books devote whole chapters to Washington and the cherry tree at the expense of mentioning that he did in fact own slaves.
That's academia. I bet you less than half of the people off the street could identify Washington as a slaveowner.

quote:
It is true that many historians don't like asking, "What if...?" This dislike mostly stems, I think, from the difficulty of answering the question, compared to the question, "What was...?" There is still a fair bit of discussion, though, about Truman dropping the atom bomb on Japan. Historians do argue whether this was a good thing to do or not.

Likewise, there has been a great deal of investigation into how exactly we got into Vietnam, which was a long and complicated process, perhaps as long and complicated as how we got into Iraq, so I don't doubt that historians even now are doing their best to figure out how the heck we got into Iraq. If it proves demonstrable — and this will take time and a great burden of evidence, not just probable speculation — that we went there for corporate greed, I don't doubt that some textbooks will attempt to paper this over, but some others will write it.

As for what we should have done, well, eh. Like I said, historians have trouble proving what we should have done, but they don't have any trouble pointing out what we could have done, and I don't doubt that they will here, too.

The problem is that the history books are a lot different from the history. If you ask people about how Vietnam ended, it was the antiwar activists destroying the morale of the fighting forces, and there's countless (entirely fabricated) stories about soldiers getting spat on back home.

There's a difference between history as it is taught in the books and history as it is taught on late-night TV. The latter is a lot more influential, and that's why the American withdrawal from Vietnam is, preposterously, considered a conscious decision forced on the American government by the radicals among the American left instead of a recognition of the futility of holding onto South Vietnam by the military establishment in the face of serious failures.

Serious history is almost unanimous in the military-fatigue angle; pop-history is almost unanimous in the commie-activist-flower-power angle. (Whether the activists are considered brave antiwar crusaders or heinous communists, they're still, wrongly, either credited or blamed for the American withdrawal pretty much everywhere except scholarly history.)

When academics write the history books on Iraq, they'll recognize first and foremost the military fatiguing of the occupation and pushing for withdrawal - if it's anything like Vietnam, anyway - because as soon as the brass lose enthusiasm for a project like this it tends to decay.

But when Jay Leno cracks wise about it in fifteen years, I seriously doubt his first concern is going to be academic rigor.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 11:52: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #28
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Whatever the true reason was for the war, the reality is that it was sold to Congress and the American public largely on false pretenses, lubricated by the climate of fear generated by September 11th. There was never any truly "just" rationale for this "intervention," however.
It could have been just, but it was conceived by villains for villainy. There's nothing good that can come of that, and we face the black harvest of Bush & co's greed now.

At least only about 3500 Coalition forces have died - the Iraqis have, by conservative estimates, suffered 650,000 dead since the invasion.

In other words, we've inflicted more victims on Iraq in four short years than Saddam did in his entire tenure.

USA! USA! USA!

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 11:59: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
Profile Homepage #29
While at this point I realize that Iraq was a mistake, one question still nags at me. If Saddam didn't have any WMDs (and the consensus is that he didn't) why the hell did he doom his regime by refusing to give complete access to UN inspectors, as he was required to my the treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War?

--------------------
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein
--------------------
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #30
He was counting on his bluff working. It worked for North Korea, after all.

Besides, he wasn't so much refusing them access as giving them access while at the same time blustering about his military power, leading to the impression that he had to be hiding something no matter how many searches failed to turn anything up.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 13:03: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #31
quote:
Originally written by WiKiSpidweb:

While at this point I realize that Iraq was a mistake, one question still nags at me. If Saddam didn't have any WMDs (and the consensus is that he didn't) why the hell did he doom his regime by refusing to give complete access to UN inspectors, as he was required to my the treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War?
The idea that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq conflates the 2003 invasion and occupation with the 1998 bombing campaign, Desert Fox, orchestrated by the US under the Clinton administration. In 1998, the US asked weapons inspectors to leave and proceeded to bomb suspected WMD-making facilities with cruise missiles.

In 2002, Saddam Hussein invited UN weapons inspectors into the country in order to satisfy the UN resolution putting the burden on Iraq to prove it had no WMDs. Whereas Clinton's bombardment was welcomed by the UN as adding teeth to their complaints of non-cooperation with weapons inspection, Bush's invasion was regarded as an effort to gainsay Hans Blix's inspections in Iraq, which had been given as complete access to Iraqi facilities as the boundaries of national sovereignty allow to inspectors and demonstrated pretty conclusively they had no WMD ambitions.

I'm certain the conflation on your part is the result of a simple and inoffensive misapprehension; the right-wing noise machine has been very busy trying to reconstruct Clinton, buffing and adding truthiness to every absurd allegation thrown at him by the lunatic reactionary faction in the 90s and transposing every policy of his they have any reason to admire to one of the Bushes. Very little effort is made by the media to approach the Clinton administration honestly.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 13:00: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
Profile Homepage #32
I do recall the Desert Fox operations during Clinton's tenure. My understanding had been that Saddam once again was obstructing a full inspection, not allowing access to certain palaces, citing a need for privacy.

--------------------
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein
--------------------
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7538
Profile Homepage #33
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Oh, and yes, I do plan on eating Christian blood with great relish in the coming Passover holiday.
Ahem. Do you mind? Really? I mean come on. :rolleyes:

--------------------
Do not provoke the turtles.
They do not like being provoked.

-Lenar

My website: Nemesis' Refuge
Posts: 743 | Registered: Friday, September 29 2006 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #34
quote:
Originally written by WiKiSpidweb:

I do recall the Desert Fox operations during Clinton's tenure. My understanding had been that Saddam once again was obstructing a full inspection, not allowing access to certain palaces, citing a need for privacy.
Nope. At the very least not enough to modify the validity of the UN's assessment in any substantial way.

The obstructions were few and moderate. Blix acknowledged them, but rightly assessed that Iraq would not be capable of stockpiling, manufacturing, or maintaining weapons of mass destruction in the small areas cited as private.

And given that several UN weapons instructors took bribes from the US government in order to spy on the Iraqi government's internal affairs - and that this was basically an open secret - Saddam's moderation in resisting inspectors was pretty astounding.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #35
Alec: I see. You're talking about the pop culture concept of history. I will grant that pop culture usually gets everything horribly, horribly wrong, so this is probably no exception.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #36
quote:
Originally written by Nemesis.:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Oh, and yes, I do plan on eating Christian blood with great relish in the coming Passover holiday.
Ahem. Do you mind? Really? I mean come on. :rolleyes:

Well, the babies just aren't appetizing at all if the relish is no good.

—Alorael, who will have you know that the Torah is very specific about which babies are kosher for Passover. They can't have been born too long ago or they've got too much yeast in them. You have to get them fresh!
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #37
18 months is the cutoff date. And they can't have had any previous diseases, broken bones or cuts that left scars. Of course the best parts of the firstborns are burned as an offering to God, but there's still usually enough left over for the seder.

Yes, I do mind, I just don't care. If you can't figure out that I'm being sarcastic even then, I have very little care for your need for me not to say stuff that isn't in jest.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 3364
Profile Homepage #38
quote:
Originally written by Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

And the record indicates that not once between Desert Storm and the occupation did Saddam have either the resources or the inclination to build WMDs.
I asked you nicely, but did you listen to me? No. Not that I'd expect you to.

Here is what the Democrats had to say about the 'record' that you seem to think is so obvious.

And for those that don't know, Desert Storm started August 2, 1990 and ended February 27, 1991.

quote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
(He at least indicates that he thinks there is still a threat.)

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I just love that last one. It's too bad they didn't all read the same record you have. Then they'd know better, right?

quote:
'Going' to pot? The Iraqis seem to be doing a pretty good job of running their own government. On election days, the insurgent groups literally stopped with the attacks and started guarding polling places.
You misunderstood. I don't unqustionably think that it will 'go to pot' without us there. Just that I don't seem to care much if they do.

quote:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the pessimism over the ability of Iraq to govern itself is motivated by a sort of subtle but awful racism - the same that feared when Saddam was executed that riots would break out, because obviously the Iraqis just love to beat each other up for no good reason like the children they are.
I have no qualm with the Iraqi people. They are no different from us. We have criminals in America just like they have criminals there. They just, unfortunately (and possibly due to a certain someone or group of someones not having a viable plan of action for creating one when they took out the previous one), seem to lack a stable government and police force to adequately deal with the insurgants (aka. criminals) in their country. I'd just rather let them deal with their criminals on their own. If they can handle it, great! If they can't... well, see statement above.

quote:
The large majority of violence in Iraq is directed towards coalition forces; polls conducted in Iraq consistently find that less than the margin of error think US forces are doing any good there or want them to remain there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Haven't they been asking us to send more troops? Not that I really disagree with your statement. It's probably the same as with any country. People have differing opinions and differing views. Some want us there, some don't. I'd rather we weren't there, too.

quote:
Why did we wage this war? Blah, blah, blah. Alec is so smart. Blah, blah, blah. You are all dumb. Blah, blah, blah. It was obviously for the oil. Blah, blah, blah. Bow down and worship me now.
FYT

quote:
But Jewels, as I expected she would, blames Bush for the mess to the extent she has a problem with it at all. Of course: Bush is a wonderful fall-guy and allowing him to play the patsy prevents us from having to take the ugly step of wondering why he's done us so horribly wrong. You don't even have to get all the way through how he's done so.
And who do you blame? Well, lets review...

quote:
Thank god those WMDs probably don't exist, because if they did some pretty nasty people would probably have them thanks to Bush.

Note, and note well, that the reason for this war was not any of the stated reasons; it was to satisfy the ridiculous political yen of Bush's handlers.
Kinda looks like you're using the same fall-guy I am. Not for quite the same thing or in quite the same way, but then again you didn't really enlighten us with who we obviously should blame for the mess. And if you're implying that every American who voted him into office is to blame, well then, maybe you think we should stay there since roughly half the country created the mess.

But if I misunderstood your point entirely, I apologise. We can't all be as smart as you and you know very well how intelligent I am. I suggest using country bumpkin speak to succsessfully communicate with us country bumpkins.

Best wishes on your next character assassination of myself.

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7538
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Yes, I do mind, I just don't care. If you can't figure out that I'm being sarcastic even then, I have very little care for your need for me not to say stuff that isn't in jest.
: + P = All better.

You might be surprised how well it works. If you mean it as a joke, you should indicate that it is.

Anyway. Hatchet buried.

[ Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:41: Message edited by: Nemesis. ]

--------------------
Do not provoke the turtles.
They do not like being provoked.

-Lenar

My website: Nemesis' Refuge
Posts: 743 | Registered: Friday, September 29 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #40
Maybe there should be an automatic "grain of salt" emoticon added to all posts.

Are skins so thin that a veiled barb can cause offense? Bleagh. To paraphrase a reaction I saw on another webforum, it's time to cover up those prejudices and make pretty again.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #41
The fact that humor is deadpan by default on the internet is no reason for everyone to have to add a LOL sign to funny posts.

—Alorael, who supports subtlety. There's no better way to sneer at the oblivious.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #42
Wow, way to give me any incentive to address anything you have to say. You throw a bunch of quotes from the Democrats - who neither I nor any major left-wing critic of the war has ever identified directly with - and then you go on to feign the vapors over being called ignorant. Well, gee, some people would call that charity - I'm not willing to assume you're evil right off the bat, but if you'd like I can jump directly to that from now on.

Jewels, you're a reactionary cretin and I truly do not have time to deal with your nonsense. When I do have the time I might give your rambling pap a once-over to see if I can point out anything that makes you look like even more of a lying buffoon than usual, but I make no promises.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #43
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

...
The question is which of the many errors made the difference that led to the case that is so much worse than that. Was there in fact ever any real chance for a much better outcome? Four years ago it seemed so, but was that an illusion?
...

After collapse of USSR, leader of an ultra-nationalist party won third place in the first free presidential elections in Russia. (By "ultra-nationalist" I mean "gangs of young men with shaved heads who attack "non-Russian" looking people on the streets.) Ultra-nationalists had as much success in all other formerly communist countries as well.

There had been about a dozen civil wars from Nagorniy Karabah to Bosnia, most of which probably never made headlines in the West.

When an iron fist that held together a multi-ethnic country suddenly disappears, something has to replace it. That something is usually ultra-nationalism. (Or, in Iraqi case, sectarian fanaticism, because sects of Islam play same role in their society as ethnicity plays in Eastern Europe.) I am not sure why this always happens. Perhaps, after the old order is exposed as evil and becomes uncool, people look for something to replace it and can find that replacement only in nationalism. (If we can no longer be proud of being citizens of USSR/Yugoslavia/Iraq, we can at least be proud of being Georgians/Croats/Sunnis.) The rise of nationalism by itself might not necessarily lead to war, but when it comes together with collapse of old power structures and rise of extrimist leaders, the outcome shouldn't be surprising.

Another reason why extrimist leaders tend to be so successful during such transitions is that moderates waste all their time squabbling about fine points of constitutional law, while extrimists/authoritarians are working on uniting and building up their power bases. Current situation in Russia is a good example of this fall of moderate reformers. They spent so much time attacking each other, that Putin's party got enough votes to modify the constitution to make parties eligible for Parlament seats only if they get at least 5% of votes in every province. The democratic parties are too fractionalized to pass this threshold, so there are only 3 parties in Russian parlament now: Putin's party, Communists (struggling as their supporters die of old age), and ultra-nationalists.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #44
By Protocols of the Elders of Zion
quote:

Jewels, you're a reactionary cretin and I truly do not have time to deal with your nonsense.
I wouldn't necessarily call that nonsense, however, I do doubt Hussein having an inclination to develop WMDs since he was successfully killing people without them.

You want to know what's nonsense: The whole disgusting, stupid, blasphemous, cannibalistic, immoral discussion about EATING babies. Even if that is a joke, it isn't the least bit funny.
:mad:

--------------------
WWJD?
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #45
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

You want to know what's nonsense: The whole disgusting, stupid, blasphemous, cannibalistic, immoral discussion about EATING babies. Even if that is a joke, it isn't the least bit funny.
:mad:

:rolleyes:

Go look up blood libel, will you?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 8
Profile #46
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

You want to know what's nonsense: The whole disgusting, stupid, blasphemous, cannibalistic, immoral discussion about EATING babies. Even if that is a joke, it isn't the least bit funny.
:mad:

Well I PROPOSED eating our eggs instead but nobody took to it!

--------------------
"Names is for tombstones, baby." -Mr. Big
Posts: 699 | Registered: Thursday, September 20 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #47
By Thuryl
quote:
Go look up blood libel, will you?
I still consider those jokes crude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
quote:
Blood libels are unfounded allegations that a particular group eats people as a form of human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim of using the blood of their victims in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.
I noticed that Wikipedia referred to blood libels as unfounded allegations.

--------------------
WWJD?
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Agent
Member # 5814
Profile #48
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

By Thuryl
quote:
Go look up blood libel, will you?
I still consider those jokes crude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
quote:
Blood libels are unfounded allegations that a particular group eats people as a form of human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim of using the blood of their victims in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.
I noticed that Wikipedia referred to blood libels as unfounded allegations.

Well, do you know anyone who eats babies?

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon
Well, I'm at least pretty

Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #49
And I thought the salient point of that discussion was over the matter of great relish. *I* prefer mango chutney with my baby. LOLZ!!11!
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00

Pages