NationStates Jolt Archive

Not have declared war on the country in the first place.

What do you believe could have prevented Iraq from descending into civil war? What would you have done differently back in 2003, when the US had just finished major combat operations whilst the POTUS was on the deck of the Lincoln? Was this current situation inevitable? Is there still a way to reverse this situation?

Personally I feel that after the UNSC post-humously granted their blessing on the US invasion of Iraq, they ought to have put UN peacekeepers on the ground, and withdrew the Coalition forces. Reasons for this follow:


1. The US Army was not inherently designed to be an occupying force. It is designed for quick, spear-head campaigns to quickly knock out a countries infrastructure and military. That's why the initial invasion of Iraq ended so quickly, and it's why the occupation failed.
The UN Peacekeepers are trained and equipped for long-term missions, specifically designed to keep rival factions apart and prevent clashes, whilst mediating between leaders. They aren't supposed to be an aggresive, heavy-handed force.

2. The US coalition was never going to be greeted as a liberator. Not only was the US the invading force, the US and UK were already too politically involved in the Middle East to begin with. How could the Coalition not be seen as an occupier?
The UN peacekeepers couldn't be seen to have ulterior motives, nor could they be insinuated to be politically involved. Thier long standing neutrality earns them respect as mediators from local populations. This has been proven countless times.

3. Regime change implemented by the US was doomed to fail. Iraqi elections couldn't be allowed to elect a government that was in anyway polar to the US. These elections where seen as largely corrupt and unrepresentative.
The UN has had experience in setting up transitional authorities, leading up to fully fledged freely elected parliaments, in various countries, such as East Timor and African nations. The UN would have no ulterior motive, and so the elections results in Iraq would have been much more representative of the Iraqi people, if they were run by a UN transitional authority.

There are currently 16 UN peacekeeping missions around the world, and they are largely doing very well. The fact that most UN peacekeepers are Scandinavian and Indonesian means that it is easier for them to operate as mediators since they can't be insinuated to be for either side in most of the hot spots they are deployed to, such as Africa and the Middle East. They aren't seen as the occupiers, as most Iraqi's now view the US-UK coalition.

So what do you think, NS? What would you have done in Iraq?

I would have not invaded, seeing as how there is no rationale for doing so.

besides never going in in the first place?

i would have waited until my soldiers had the supplies they needed to be the safest they could be. there is no excuse for declaring war without body armor for every soldier

i would have waited until i could have located and built up a group opposed to the baathist regime (or more cynically found someone inside the baathist party) that would have enough popular credibility and support to take over the government in the short run.

barring that, i would have listened to my generals in iraq. oh i know that bush claims that he listens to them but what he really does is listen to those who agree with him and fire those who dont. they probably had lots of good advice that went ignored because it didnt fit the rosy view of the administration.

i would have secured the infrastructure of the capital so that everything didnt have to be reinvented afterwards. i would have analysed the structure of government to understand that while everyone HAD to be a baathist, most didnt support the baathist regime. i would have kept more of the medium level bureaucrats instead of firing everyone with baathist credentials.

there are just so many ways that this thing has gone wrong that quite a few books have been written already on how it could have been done better.

Not disbanding the iraqi army, creating a power vaccuum as well as thousands of resentful and angry people with miltary traing and all of a sudden too much time on their hands.

Not disbanding the iraqi army, creating a power vaccuum as well as thousands of resentful and angry people with miltary traing and all of a sudden too much time on their hands.

This, true. But I never would have invaded to begin with.

Armies are designed to break things, in a noteworthy manner. My US Army wouldn't have been messing around with roadside bombs, but hunting down the idiots who build them. They would be telling Iran, via a large application of non-nuclear reminders delivered by B-52 that we don't like others playing with our new toy.

Given that, I wouldn't start anything until I'd worked out all the details.

What do you believe could have prevented Iraq from descending into civil war? What would you have done differently back in 2003, when the US had just finished major combat operations whilst the POTUS was on the deck of the Lincoln? Was this current situation inevitable? Is there still a way to reverse this situation?
Many things.

Personally I feel that after the UNSC post-humously granted their blessing on the US invasion of Iraq, they ought to have put UN peacekeepers on the ground, and withdrew the Coalition forces. Reasons for this follow:
They didn't give thir blessing on the invasion, but they did try to help with the situation.

1. The US Army was not inherently designed to be an occupying force. It is designed for quick, spear-head campaigns to quickly knock out a countries infrastructure and military. That's why the initial invasion of Iraq ended so quickly, and it's why the occupation failed.

The UN Peacekeepers are trained and equipped for long-term missions, specifically designed to keep rival factions apart and prevent clashes, whilst mediating between leaders. They aren't supposed to be an aggresive, heavy-handed force.
So basically you're saying that the US Army is flawed and not trained properly, and that if they had been trained more like peacekeepers it would have worked out better. Well, there you go then. Instead of involving the UN, since neither the US government nor any UN member state was very interested in that happening in Iraq, you could have trained the US troops properly.


2. The US coalition was never going to be greeted as a liberator. Not only was the US the invading force, the US and UK were already too politically involved in the Middle East to begin with. How could the Coalition not be seen as an occupier?
Ask the current administration. Mind you, if you had asked the same question before or during the invasion, you'd be branded as a negative nay-sayer out of touch with reality and promptly igored.

The UN peacekeepers couldn't be seen to have ulterior motives, nor could they be insinuated to be politically involved. Thier long standing neutrality earns them respect as mediators from local populations. This has been proven countless times.
But in those situations the major factions actually wanted peace. Is that the situation in Iraq?

3. Regime change implemented by the US was doomed to fail. Iraqi elections couldn't be allowed to elect a government that was in anyway polar to the US. These elections where seen as largely corrupt and unrepresentative.
The UN has had experience in setting up transitional authorities, leading up to fully fledged freely elected parliaments, in various countries, such as East Timor and African nations. The UN would have no ulterior motive, and so the elections results in Iraq would have been much more representative of the Iraqi people, if they were run by a UN transitional authority.
Maybe it could have worked, but the administration would never have allowed it.

There are currently 16 UN peacekeeping missions around the world, and they are largely doing very well. The fact that most UN peacekeepers are Scandinavian and Indonesian means that it is easier for them to operate as mediators since they can't be insinuated to be for either side in most of the hot spots they are deployed to, such as Africa and the Middle East. They aren't seen as the occupiers, as most Iraqi's now view the US-UK coalition.
Um, no. You know who the largest contributors to the peacekeeping forces are? In total forces consisting of military observers, police and troops it's Pakistan with 9,989, Bangladesh with 9,656 and India with 9,612. Indonesia offers "only" 1,058 in total, and the scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) offers a grand total of 499 people. (Numbers from january 2007.)

So what do you think, NS? What would you have done in Iraq?
Dunno. Never gone there in the first place? Changed the administration? Trained the troops properly? Created alliances? Not gone with only the "coalition of the willing"? Talked to Syria and Iran?

I would have not invaded, seeing as how there is no rationale for doing so.

Untrue. We know now that there was little if any WMD infrastructure left, but that was NOT known at the time (it was widely believed, not only in the US, but around the world, that Saddam still had the infrastructure, since he would not allow the UN inspectors to actually do their jobs, and never had). More importantly, Saddam had signed an agreement at the end of the first Gulf War as to what would happen; to be frank, he never even came close to fulfilling the Iraqi end of the deal, and there's a casus belli right there.

And of course, Saddam was a dictator. In the modern world, dictatorships simply aren't legitimate; dozens of military actions have been conducted "to oust the Dictator" - it's a legitimate excuse.

There was, actually, a strong rationale for the invasion.

What would I have done? I'd've occupied the country, but I'd've done it right. Divide the country into sections, no travel between sections; seal the borders, no one in or out; sweep all cities, one area at a time, confiscating all weaponry.

Once the country is pacified, you build infrastructure. You don't try to build infrastructure in a war zone.

Oh, and the press can say what they like - but they can't enter Iraq.

I hate to be a me-too piler-on, but I'm forced to say that I wouldn't have gone in in the first place. There's less oil coming out of there now than there was before the invasion, oil-for-food cooruption or not, the infrastructure was in better shape, and I have a hard time attempting to liberate people who'd just rather blow each other up over something as inconsequential as "which scion of Mohammed should we follow" and are still at it some 1200+ years later. People are lining up behind those who fought over that stupid idea -- and those people who disagreed had absolutely no concern for the average person in the region when they were bickering. Those people allowed themselves to get worked into a generational lather over a custody dispute that had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they had enough to eat. When pressed, I'd wager not 10% of the rank-and-file Iraqi even fully understands why the Shia and Sunni hate one another. That kind of blind allegiance to irrational hatred has completely sundered my respect for Islam. And yes, I know that not all are that narrow-minded, but that means exactly nothing when nobody wants to speak truth. Nobody wants to speak truth because those who would do so are afraid to die and those who wouldn't listen anyway are NOT AFRAID TO DIE. In fact, they LONG for it. How do you impose ANYthing on people whose goal in life is to give it away -- preferably in an explosive fashion?

The Kurds are the only ones really looking for autonomy, and the US has already fucked them over (see Gulf War One).

telling Bush to Fuck off when ask to send Australian Forces there

Untrue. We know now that there was little if any WMD infrastructure left, but that was NOT known at the time (it was widely believed, not only in the US, but around the world, that Saddam still had the infrastructure, since he would not allow the UN inspectors to actually do their jobs, and never had). More importantly, Saddam had signed an agreement at the end of the first Gulf War as to what would happen; to be frank, he never even came close to fulfilling the Iraqi end of the deal, and there's a casus belli right there.

And of course, Saddam was a dictator. In the modern world, dictatorships simply aren't legitimate; dozens of military actions have been conducted "to oust the Dictator" - it's a legitimate excuse.

There was, actually, a strong rationale for the invasion.

What would I have done? I'd've occupied the country, but I'd've done it right. Divide the country into sections, no travel between sections; seal the borders, no one in or out; sweep all cities, one area at a time, confiscating all weaponry.

Once the country is pacified, you build infrastructure. You don't try to build infrastructure in a war zone.

Oh, and the press can say what they like - but they can't enter Iraq.

A strong rationale? Then why aren't other dictators being deposed by military force as we speak? We might not have known there were no WMD, but we sure as hell didn't know ENOUGH to launch a full-scale invasion and waste soldiers' lives. Yes, I said it -- saying military lives are wasted says NOTHING about those lives and EVERYTHING about those sending them, NeoCon spin be damned.

Untrue. We know now that there was little if any WMD infrastructure left, but that was NOT known at the time (it was widely believed, not only in the US, but around the world, that Saddam still had the infrastructure, since he would not allow the UN inspectors to actually do their jobs, and never had).
Yet Bush didn't let them finish their job when they were given access, and the invation started before the final report was presented to the UNSC. So it could and would have been known - though I doubt the administration would have listened anyway.

More importantly, Saddam had signed an agreement at the end of the first Gulf War as to what would happen; to be frank, he never even came close to fulfilling the Iraqi end of the deal, and there's a casus belli right there.
The UN brokered peace agreement could never serve as a casus belli without explicit UN approval, which it did not have.

And of course, Saddam was a dictator. In the modern world, dictatorships simply aren't legitimate; dozens of military actions have been conducted "to oust the Dictator" - it's a legitimate excuse.
No, it isn't. Invasions to change the leadership of a country is unacceptable under international law, and it is not a legitimate excuse to breach the peace. The closest you're gonna get is the slim possibility of humanitarian intervention, but that's it - and it was no pressing situation that required such an intervention in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

There was, actually, a strong rationale for the invasion.
Actually, there wasn't.

American president: Nothing

If i was the British Prime Minister: :upyours: to America

Untrue. We know now that there was little if any WMD infrastructure left, but that was NOT known at the time (it was widely believed, not only in the US, but around the world, that Saddam still had the infrastructure, since he would not allow the UN inspectors to actually do their jobs, and never had). More importantly, Saddam had signed an agreement at the end of the first Gulf War as to what would happen; to be frank, he never even came close to fulfilling the Iraqi end of the deal, and there's a casus belli right there.

And of course, Saddam was a dictator. In the modern world, dictatorships simply aren't legitimate; dozens of military actions have been conducted "to oust the Dictator" - it's a legitimate excuse.

There was, actually, a strong rationale for the invasion.

What would I have done? I'd've occupied the country, but I'd've done it right. Divide the country into sections, no travel between sections; seal the borders, no one in or out; sweep all cities, one area at a time, confiscating all weaponry.

Once the country is pacified, you build infrastructure. You don't try to build infrastructure in a war zone.

Oh, and the press can say what they like - but they can't enter Iraq.
no thats an excellent rationale for keeping a good eye in iraq, for keeping pressure in iraq, for increasing intelligence operations in iraq, and for making contingency plans for taking out hussein if he started threatening his neighbors again.

its a terrible reason for rushing into war without enough supplies for our troops and a plan for dealing with the aftermath.

A strong rationale? Then why aren't other dictators being deposed by military force as we speak?

It's moderately annoying when you ignore two-thirds of the reasoning and go after one third like it was the entire argument. It also doesn't exactly make for a good counterargument, since, as in this case, you end up asking questions I've already answered.

We might not have known there were no WMD, but we sure as hell didn't know ENOUGH to launch a full-scale invasion and waste soldiers' lives. Yes, I said it -- saying military lives are wasted says NOTHING about those lives and EVERYTHING about those sending them, NeoCon spin be damned.

I disagree. If a person get's killed doing what they believe in, or for a cause they consider right, their lives are not wasted, regardless of what that cause actually is.

I'm not saying that I would not have decided to invade Iraq. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein had the ability to research and develop chemical or nuclear weapons, I not have took my eyes off him quite so quickly. But there was no evidence or intel even in late 2002 that Iraq was any more or less of a threat than they were in 1998. Also, diplomatic options hadn't been exhausted. A lot of political pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria were being brought to bear on Iraq, and we never really gave it a chance to bear fruit. They were even in the process of negotiating Saddam's exile.

Besides, there were bigger fish to fry. Like Al Quada. We missed a tremendous opportunity to cut them off from all support, finance and safe harbors by getting distracted by Iraq.

There was time to build a consensus in the UN and to develop the intel we needed to discover the true extent of Saddam's weapons programs. There was no reason to believe they were what Dick Cheney referred to as an 'imminent threat'.

Many things.

Um, no. You know who the largest contributors to the peacekeeping forces are? In total forces consisting of military observers, police and troops it's Pakistan with 9,989, Bangladesh with 9,656 and India with 9,612. Indonesia offers "only" 1,058 in total, and the scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) offers a grand total of 499 people. (Numbers from january 2007.)



Ah. Technically, I was including Pakistan, Indian and Bangladeshi troops with Indonesia, but I suppose it ought to be "Central Asia".

Yet Bush didn't let them finish their job when they were given access, and the invation started before the final report was presented to the UNSC. So it could and would have been known - though I doubt the administration would have listened anyway.

Considering that Saddam had kicked the UN out of the country entirely, I find your argument does not match the facts.

The UN brokered peace agreement could never serve as a casus belli without explicit UN approval, which it did not have.

Bullshit. Just because a peace is UN brokered doesn't give the UN some magical authority over all aspects of the situation. The UN is NOT a world government. The agreement was between Iraq and (among others) the US. Once Iraq violated the treaty, the US could treat it as a casus belli immediately.


No, it isn't. Invasions to change the leadership of a country is unacceptable under international law, and it is not a legitimate excuse to breach the peace. The closest you're gonna get is the slim possibility of humanitarian intervention, but that's it - and it was no pressing situation that required such an intervention in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

Again, bullshit. There have been dozens of "interventions", "stabilising operations" and similar euphemisms over the past half-century, and virtually all of them translate to "removing the local strongman". Nobody cared then, and it's pretty hypocritical to start now.

Actually, there wasn't.

Rationally, and taking the situation as it was known at the time, your argument falls on it's face.

no thats an excellent rationale for keeping a good eye in iraq, for keeping pressure in iraq, for increasing intelligence operations in iraq, and for making contingency plans for taking out hussein if he started threatening his neighbors again.

its a terrible reason for rushing into war without enough supplies for our troops and a plan for dealing with the aftermath.

Now, THAT I can agree with.

You can't zen a war.

no thats an excellent rationale for keeping a good eye in iraq, for keeping pressure in iraq, for increasing intelligence operations in iraq, and for making contingency plans for taking out hussein if he started threatening his neighbors again.

its a terrible reason for rushing into war without enough supplies for our troops and a plan for dealing with the aftermath.

Now, THAT I can agree with.

You can't zen a war.

Showed them that I meant business by eating their babies :D

j/k, j/k

I'm not saying that I would not have decided to invade Iraq. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein had the ability to research and develop chemical or nuclear weapons, I not have took my eyes off him quite so quickly. But there was no evidence or intel even in late 2002 that Iraq was any more or less of a threat than they were in 1998. Also, diplomatic options hadn't been exhausted. A lot of political pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria were being brought to bear on Iraq, and we never really gave it a chance to bear fruit. They were even in the process of negotiating Saddam's exile.

Besides, there were bigger fish to fry. Like Al Quada. We missed a tremendous opportunity to cut them off from all support, finance and safe harbors by getting distracted by Iraq.

There was time to build a consensus in the UN and to develop the intel we needed to discover the true extent of Saddam's weapons programs. There was no reason to believe they were what Dick Cheney referred to as an 'imminent threat'.
And they call you the lunatic :)

Considering that Saddam had kicked the UN out of the country entirely, I find your argument does not match the facts.
Strange... Tell that to Hans Blix who was actually in the country at the time, and only left because the US told him to do so.


Bullshit. Just because a peace is UN brokered doesn't give the UN some magical authority over all aspects of the situation. The UN is NOT a world government. The agreement was between Iraq and (among others) the US. Once Iraq violated the treaty, the US could treat it as a casus belli immediately.
Bullshit.

That's simply not how the cease fire treaty would work, nor the UN nor international law.


Again, bullshit. There have been dozens of "interventions", "stabilising operations" and similar euphemisms over the past half-century, and virtually all of them translate to "removing the local strongman". Nobody cared then, and it's pretty hypocritical to start now.
Well then. If it indeed is bullshit, you may provide examples of military actions that has been conducted to "oust the Dictator". And if it really is a legitimate excuse, I would expect the numerous examples to not have other justifications like humanitarian concerns. And you may show where the international community accepts the excuse, thus making it an acceptable rationale under international law.

I'll wait :)


Rationally, and taking the situation as it was known at the time, your argument falls on it's face.
Actually, it doesn't. That's why it didn't have UN approval either.

I'm not saying that I would not have decided to invade Iraq. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein had the ability to research and develop chemical or nuclear weapons, I not have took my eyes off him quite so quickly. But there was no evidence or intel even in late 2002 that Iraq was any more or less of a threat than they were in 1998. Also, diplomatic options hadn't been exhausted. A lot of political pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria were being brought to bear on Iraq, and we never really gave it a chance to bear fruit. They were even in the process of negotiating Saddam's exile.

Besides, there were bigger fish to fry. Like Al Quada. We missed a tremendous opportunity to cut them off from all support, finance and safe harbors by getting distracted by Iraq.

There was time to build a consensus in the UN and to develop the intel we needed to discover the true extent of Saddam's weapons programs. There was no reason to believe they were what Dick Cheney referred to as an 'imminent threat'.

Someday I'm going to plagiarize you.

And they call you the lunatic :)




In the land of the mad, only the lunatic is sane.

I believe I said that before, haven't I?

In the land of the mad, only the lunatic is sane.

I believe I said that before, haven't I?

At least once. :)

Assuming that I am elected President in 2004...

I would restructure Iraq.

turn it into another Berlin and Germany. wall off the Sunni's, Shiites, and others. Keeping the central Government the only area where they'll meet.

Then, do the same with Iraq itself.

Each section polices themselves and keeps to themselves. each section elects in their fashion their own leader who will then rule Iraq with the other section leaders.

not pretty, but it will keep them fighting with each other.

Scanned the Internet for young people who hated my policies, and drafted them, and sent them to Anbar Province with no weapons except slingshots.

And they call you the lunatic :)
Strange... Tell that to Hans Blix who was actually in the country at the time, and only left because the US told him to do so.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe Hans Blix if he told me the sun was shining.


Bullshit.

That's simply not how the cease fire treaty would work, nor the UN nor international law.


First, there's no such thing as International Law. To have Law, you require a means of enforcement, and there isn't one. WE only have international agreements and treaties.

And whether or not you believe that's how a cease fire works, it is in fact the way it works. The UN brokers cease-fires and peace treaties because both sides honour it as an uninvolved party they can trust to be impartial, not because of any magical powers such as you sem to ascribe to it. But the agreement is STILL between the two powers involved, NOT the UN. Thus, it is still between the signatories as to whether one side or the other will obey the strictures of the treaty, and whether the other will call him on it.


Well then. If it indeed is bullshit, you may provide examples of military actions that has been conducted to "oust the Dictator". And if it really is a legitimate excuse, I would expect the numerous examples to not have other justifications like humanitarian concerns. And you may show where the international community accepts the excuse, thus making it an acceptable rationale under international law.

I'll wait :)

Sure. Vietnam invades Cambodia. Three of it's neighbours invade the Congo. Fourof it's neighbours, at various times, invade Zambia. The US invasion of Panama. The Egyptian invasion by Britain and France (Suez Crisis - stated intention was to depose the Egyptian dictatorship.)

All of these had other reasons to go along with regime change (and of course, that particular term had not yet been coined). So did the US in this case.

Actually, it doesn't. That's why it didn't have UN approval either.

So, who needed it?

I would not have gone. No WMDs, no Al qaeda ties, all lies. I read one post that said ousting a dictator was cause enough, if that's the case, why have we done nothing about kim jung il (north korea) or iran. Saddam never shot at us as north korean troops have done more than a few times in the DMZ; saddam never threatened us, yet the government comes up with excuse after excuse to go after him. I'm not defending saddam as a leader, obviously a horrible human being who deserved what he got. This war was put into motion even before 9/11. The concept, and policy being followed post 9/11 is one of a never-ending war (on terror) stripping away the rights of citzens (patriot act) and literally scaring the bejesus out of the citizenry (constant vague terror alerts, red orange amber etc color of the day) The war on terror is a misnomer, terror is a tactic, not an entity. if this truly were a war on terrorism we would have gone after states that openly sponsor terrorism such as syria, iran, and saudi arabia. going into afganistan was correct, although now largely forgotten, and the situation has been declining there for some time after the iraq fiasco began. if this were truly a war on terror, why haven't we used our vast resources and intelligence to find osama and destroy al qaeda?? instead we occupy a nation, terrorizing their citizens, and in the process make our soldiers targets, and become the greatest recruiting tool for future terrorists. enough said, bush is a murderer and a lying pathetic excuse for a human being.

What do you believe could have prevented Iraq from descending into civil war?

Engage the 6 Ps (7 depending).

What would you have done differently back in 2003, when the US had just finished major combat operations whilst the POTUS was on the deck of the Lincoln?

It was too late at that point.

[QUOTE=UN Protectorates]Was this current situation inevitable?

Nope.

Is there still a way to reverse this situation?

At this point? No way in hell. The real diplomatic effort and proper war planning should have occured before the start of operations.

Personally I feel that after the UNSC post-humously granted their blessing on the US invasion of Iraq, they ought to have put UN peacekeepers on the ground, and withdrew the Coalition forces.



Reasons for this follow:


1. The US Army was not inherently designed to be an occupying force. It is designed for quick, spear-head campaigns to quickly knock out a countries infrastructure and military. That's why the initial invasion of Iraq ended so quickly, and it's why the occupation failed.

Incorrect, as can be seen in the more sucessful US peacekeeping operations like the Balkans.

The UN Peacekeepers are trained and equipped for long-term missions, specifically designed to keep rival factions apart and prevent clashes, whilst mediating between leaders. They aren't supposed to be an aggresive, heavy-handed force.

Again incorrect. For the most part they aren't particularly specially trained differently than US units of equivilant specialties. In fact, often US units of the sorts of specialties needed for these types of missions are better trained.

So what do you think, NS? What would you have done in Iraq?

The proper course of action goes back to the early 1990s - don't engage in the "peace dividend" drawdown when the end of the Cold War unleashes the nasty regular state of affairs that has been quashed.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe Hans Blix if he told me the sun was shining.

First, there's no such thing as International Law.

I'm sorry, but since we're obviously not speaking the same language here, I'm not gonna bother. Not even about your misconceptions about regime change being an legitimate excuse besides never being used officially as such. Apologies for wasting your time.

Scanned the Internet for young people who hated my policies, and drafted them, and sent them to Anbar Province with no weapons except slingshots.

This way, all of those people with such great ideas would be able to prove me wrong by implementing a great success story all on their own, without any casualties on either side.

Either that, or there are a lot more body bags coming home.

I'm sorry, but since we're obviously not speaking the same language here, I'm not gonna bother. Not even about your misconceptions about regime change being an legitimate excuse besides never being used officially as such. Apologies for wasting your time.

Nice Dodge.

Nice Dodge.

-"The water is blue"
-"There is no such thing as water"
-"I... don't think we have anything more to talk about"
-"Nice dodge"

I read one post that said ousting a dictator was cause enough, if that's the case, why have we done nothing about kim jung il (north korea) or iran.

Omar al-Bashir, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Ali Khamenei, Pervez Musharraf, Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz
Al Saud, and a whole hell of a lot of others. What the hell, might as well add Hu Jintao.

Omar al-Bashir, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Ali Khamenei, Pervez Musharraf, Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz
Al Saud, and a whole hell of a lot of others. What the hell, might as well add Hu Jintao.

There are logistical limitations...

-"The water is blue"
-"There is no such thing as water"
-"I... don't think we have anything more to talk about"
-"Nice dodge"

Come on, you know if bin Laden declared that water is wet than Bush and his supporters would have no choice but to call him a liar. :p

There are logistical limitations...

My point exactly - instead of foolishly making FP decisons on ideological grounds that can be dragged out ad infinitum, they should be made on realistic calculations. The Iraq decision was made on very foolish ideolog grounds, wrapped up in a false presentation of wishful thinking as to calculated need.

This way, all of those people with such great ideas would be able to prove me wrong by implementing a great success story all on their own, without any casualties on either side.

Either that, or there are a lot more body bags coming home.

There are, sadly, enough body bags and caskets coming home.

Also...you quoted yourself...*grabs a gun and goes searching for the rift in spacetime*

-"The water is blue"
-"There is no such thing as water"
-"I... don't think we have anything more to talk about"
-"Nice dodge"

I challenge the fundamental basis of your argument, which is neither obviously true, nor defensible;

You fold like the proverbial house of cards.

Yeah, Nice Dodge.

Oh, and Utracia, please don't compare me to those idiots currently running the White House. I could've done a better job in this war with five guys and one bayonet, and I'd bet you could too.

There are logistical limitations...

...as well as political considerations as well. Best not to remove "our" dictator, or do anything which might benefit the people in the coutry but cost us influence or money, or be against our own best interest. Actually, those are the kind of dictators we should try to protect and send our people to die for.

In short, we don't want the wrong kind of dictators to be removed.

I challenge the fundamental basis of your argument, which is neither obviously true, nor defensible;

You fold like the proverbial house of cards.

Yeah, Nice Dodge.

Oh, and Utracia, please don't compare me to those idiots currently running the White House. I could've done a better job in this war with five guys and one bayonet, and I'd bet you could too.
No you didn't. You claim there is no such thing as international law yet seek a debate on the contents of international law. And in addition, you disregard the facts because a person you don't like took part in the events.

I see no reason to debate with you when you come unwilling to debate and with a completely different philosophy. Hence the different languages remark and my water analogy. How can we discuss the colour of the water when you don't believe in any such thing as water?

You may call it a dodge; I'd call it avoiding a meaningless waste of time.

If I had been US president in 2000-2004, I would never have invaded in the first place.

If I had become president in 2004, I would have apologised to the UN on behalf of my predecessor, and asked for some UN peacekeeping forces. I would then have got all US troops out as soon as possible.

Personally I would have never invaded Iraq. The UN was doing all the bitching and moaning,let them sort the mess out.

You see we're busy hunting down this asshat scumbag terrorist leader and his mangy lice ridden rapists and murderers that had the audacity to kill 3000+ citizens of ours. Sop you see we're already a tad busy Mr UN secretary and Mr Blix seeing as we haven't found Mr Osama Asshat and his taliban wank offs have pretty much trashed Afghanistan. So we're already propping up one pisshole in the sand government.

In other words. We're busy fighting REAL terrorists.Thanks,have a nice day.

No you didn't. You claim there is no such thing as international law yet seek a debate on the contents of international law. And in addition, you disregard the facts because a person you don't like took part in the events.

I don't believe Hans Blix because he clearly has his own agenda in this. His answers and explanations change like the wind; thus I do not consider him a trustworthy source of information. Why does this matter? Because YOU cited him as an expert on the situation. I would have as soon ignored the man entirely.

And I am not debating international law. I am debating the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. That, unlike the status (or non-status) of said "law" at least partially touches on the point of this thread.


I see no reason to debate with you when you come unwilling to debate and with a completely different philosophy. Hence the different languages remark and my water analogy. How can we discuss the colour of the water when you don't believe in any such thing as water?

Allow me to paraphrase: "Since you won't let me set the ground rules for what is and isn't allowable to question, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Funny. I thought this was supposed to be debate.

I don't believe Hans Blix because he clearly has his own agenda in this. His answers and explanations change like the wind; thus I do not consider him a trustworthy source of information. Why does this matter? Because YOU cited him as an expert on the situation. I would have as soon ignored the man entirely.
...and obviously also the fact that the weapons inspectors didn't leave Iraq until after the US advised them to do so on march 16th 2003. But hey, who cares if there is such a thing as water?

And I am not debating international law. I am debating the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. That, unlike the status (or non-status) of said "law" at least partially touches on the point of this thread.
Reasons? Oh, there were a ton of reasons. Some better than others.

You said "Legitimate excuse", but there is no need for such an excuse if there's no such thing as international law. If it was only an internal excuse, that brings us back to proving that such an excuse us legitimate. And the Panama example thusly fails, because that wasn't the excuse for the invasion; rather it was to protect the Torrijos-Carter treaties, protect US lives and as a humanitarian intervention. That's how it was sold in the US.

Allow me to paraphrase: "Since you won't let me set the ground rules for what is and isn't allowable to question, I'm taking my ball and going home."
Nope, it's still "You wanna play baseball but all we have is a basketball. There is no point in trying."

Funny. I thought this was supposed to be debate.
Yeah, I thought so too. Strange that.

...and obviously also the fact that the weapons inspectors didn't leave Iraq until after the US advised them to do so on march 16th 2003. But hey, who cares if there is such a thing as water?

Ignoring your silly non-sequiturs, I would reply that while they may have been in the country, my understanding is that they had not been allowed to do their jobs, and had only recently been allowed back in an attempt to avoid (unsuccessfully) the US invasion, after a long period.
However, you are quite correct that they had indeed been allowed back in, a point I had forgotten.
And if you'd said simply that, instead of bringing up Blix as an "expert", I could have said that four posts back.


You said "Legitimate excuse", but there is no need for such an excuse if there's no such thing as international law. If it was only an internal excuse, that brings us back to proving that such an excuse us legitimate. And the Panama example thusly fails, because that wasn't the excuse for the invasion; rather it was to protect the Torrijos-Carter treaties, protect US lives and as a humanitarian intervention. That's how it was sold in the US.


Now, here's where we disconnect: you're making an assumption I do not. You assume that the web of treaties and agreements between nations only has relevance and importance if they have the force of law. I do not make that assumption; the treaties and agreements are important in and of themselves, because there is ONE international law: the law of consequences. If countries do not accept the actions of another as valid, there are all sorts of things they can do to show their displeasure.

For that reason, having a legitimate reason (or at least, a generally accepted one) IS important. Just don't assume force of law where none exists.

Oh, and as far as Panama goes, the US didn't actually need an excuse. Panama declared war.

Ignoring your silly non-sequiturs, I would reply that while they may have been in the country, my understanding is that they had not been allowed to do their jobs, and had only recently been allowed back in an attempt to avoid (unsuccessfully) the US invasion, after a long period.
However, you are quite correct that they had indeed been allowed back in, a point I had forgotten.
And if you'd said simply that, instead of bringing up Blix as an "expert", I could have said that four posts back.
I never called him an "expert", I simply said that he was in the country. The UN was there, doing their jobs, for four months. Easily forgotten I suspect, as the attention of the world probably never was on them...

The only reason they didn't finish and present their report - one that most likely would have said that Iraq did not have the capabilities to produce and no stockpiles of WMDs - was the US invasion. So after the US demanded that inspectors be allowed to do their job, in the end it was the US that stopped them from doing just that.


Now, here's where we disconnect: you're making an assumption I do not. You assume that the web of treaties and agreements between nations only has relevance and importance if they have the force of law. I do not make that assumption; the treaties and agreements are important in and of themselves, because there is ONE international law: the law of consequences. If countries do not accept the actions of another as valid, there are all sorts of things they can do to show their displeasure.

For that reason, having a legitimate reason (or at least, a generally accepted one) IS important. Just don't assume force of law where none exists.
And here is indeed the difference in philosophy presented again. *shrugs*


Oh, and as far as Panama goes, the US didn't actually need an excuse. Panama declared war.
Ah, I forgot. So your example actually wasn't.

Personally I would have never invaded Iraq. The UN was doing all the bitching and moaning,let them sort the mess out.

You see we're busy hunting down this asshat scumbag terrorist leader and his mangy lice ridden rapists and murderers that had the audacity to kill 3000+ citizens of ours. Sop you see we're already a tad busy Mr UN secretary and Mr Blix seeing as we haven't found Mr Osama Asshat and his taliban wank offs have pretty much trashed Afghanistan. So we're already propping up one pisshole in the sand government.

In other words. We're busy fighting REAL terrorists.Thanks,have a nice day.

But Iraq wasn't a mess until after the US invaded it :confused: .

not have declared war. pretty simple really.

not have declared war. pretty simple really.

That sums it up perfectly. :D

Ah, I forgot. So your example actually wasn't.

No, it was an example. The US's action clearly was one of regime change; no real attempt was made to hide this, they even said they were going after Noriega. No one objected.

Was this the only reason? No. And neither was the action against Saddam Hussein. But it was a legitimate reason to do so.

As to the force of law argument, let me be clear: International agreements cannot be considered to have the force of law because there is no mechanism of enforcement. Nations can break such agreements with impunity, unless another nation wishes to step in and impose it's own will on the situation. This cannot be considered a mechanism of enforcement because it is not an unengaged party.

Therefore, there is no such thing as true International Law.

I'd have let the weapons inspectors do their thing, and if they did find WMDs (theoretically speaking, of course), I'd pursue every diplomatic option possible to resolve things peacefully and without bloodshed. Force would only be used as an absolute last resort, and I would only go to war with international support, proper preparations, a good strategy, etc., and of course, with a congressional declaration of war.

But Iraq wasn't a mess until after the US invaded it :confused: .

Our sanctions fucked up the country pretty well even before the invasion. :(

Our sanctions fucked up the country pretty well even before the invasion. :(

So when we did invade we had a million strong military who had been unpaid for the better part of a decade, were angry and armed, then the US sacked them and sent them into the streets, smart choice there guys. So now the Iraqi insurgency is 85% Iraqi nationalists with sectarian allegiance, and 15% foreign jihadis (according to a recent Iraqi Intelligence Report).

So now the Iraqi Army is full of relatively fresh recruits, while the trained guys are all insurgents. Now it maybe convenient for Dubya to blame everyone but himself, including the Iranians and even the Iraqis themselves, but the fact remains the occupation was screwed up from day one, the second Bush appointed people to the Coalition Provisional Authority because of political reasons (that they were religious and conservative = bush supporter) instead of practical reasons, it was going downhill.

Most of Iraq's money was wasted in shady deals in which War Profiteers from the US stole most of the money, so now Iraq is worst off than under Saddam in the UN sanctions. The US needs to take responsibility and stop blaming Iran, Syria and everyone they can think of, they created this mess, they must fix it.