NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that many of the criticisms of the coalitions invasion of Iraq have been too media based and not enough real thought has gone into them. Basicly what lots of people have seen is that the coalition invades Iraq, the coalition defeats the Iraqi government, the aftermarth is bloody Ergo - we shouldnt have invaded because we caused the aftermarth.

I want to make this very clear WE DID NOT CAUSE THE AFTERMARTH DIRECTLY. It is not the fault of the US and UK governments and armies that the Iraqies let off sucide bombing after sucide bombing at each other. I can quite rightly see that some of the Iraqies would see the Coalition as evil and oppose them and attack them, but what I dont see the logic of is killing each other. For that we blame, not the USA and UK, but warped ideologies. Its not the fault of the coalition that these people want to kill each other. If you think about it, which of the following is NOT the logical response to an invasion

"Our country has been invaded, the dictator has been deposed, at last we can live freely"

"Our country has been invaded, the dictator has been deposed, who are these people to invade our land, let us kill them"

"Our country has been invaded, excellent now I can kill all those people I dont like in the chaos"

It all rather hinges on there being such a thing as a logical response to an invasion, doesn't it? There is logic to what's going on, but it wouldn't make sense if you weren't already previously intimately familiar with the country you're planning to invade (and occupy).

Your a fool. Don't make me get out my essay on how the CPA created ALL the problems in Iraq.

no, really

all that stuff IS the fault of the coalition.

I like to blame all teh liberals for not supporting the war.

I want to make this very clear WE DID NOT CAUSE THE AFTERMARTH DIRECTLY.

Maybe not directly, but you are about as responsible for crime in a neighborhood if you blew up the local police station and killed all the cops.

Which is to say, about 50% responsible at least. More actually, since if you did nothing, there wouldn't be an upsurge in crime.

I had a counter terrorism expert talk to our class shortly afetr september 11. He said that the goal of terrorists is to make a government look weak by not being able to stop them. If you for one second think that the terrorists are the fault of the coalition or iraq government, then the terrorists win. They also win if they get news coverage.

I think what's wrong is that a lot of people feel genuinely threatened by the idea of a majoritarian power structure in Iraq. The Sunnis, who were in power previously, fear the power a Shiite majority would have in a democracy, and that that democracy would cause them a great deal of suffering. Basically, it's the exchange of a minority being the oppressor for a majority being the oppressor. The only way to avoid the whole mess is not to have a power structure to frighten anyone with.

I think what's wrong is that a lot of people feel genuinely threatened by the idea of a majoritarian power structure in Iraq. The Sunnis, who were in power previously, fear the power a Shiite majority would have in a democracy, and that that democracy would cause them a great deal of suffering. Basically, it's the exchange of a minority being the oppressor for a majority being the oppressor. The only way to avoid the whole mess is not to have a power structure to frighten anyone with.

The Sunnis are afraid of ending up like the Tutsis. And Iraqnam is not a reassuring statement against such a thing happening.

It all rather hinges on there being such a thing as a logical response to an invasion, doesn't it?

Well depending on how much you liked the previous government, the logical response is either to oppose the coalition forces or to celebrate because the dictatorship is gone

all that stuff IS the fault of the coalition.

How is it the coalition's fault if some of the Sunnis and Shia's hate each other to the point of wanting to chop each others heads off in some cases

I think what's wrong is that a lot of people feel genuinely threatened by the idea of a majoritarian power structure in Iraq. The Sunnis, who were in power previously, fear the power a Shiite majority would have in a democracy, and that that democracy would cause them a great deal of suffering. Basically, it's the exchange of a minority being the oppressor for a majority being the oppressor. The only way to avoid the whole mess is not to have a power structure to frighten anyone with.

A simmilar story in Ireland at the prospect of full unity.

What is needed is a power structure that can punish specific breaches of tyranny by majority

Obviously the aftermath of an invasion has nothing to do with the invaders. Not at all. Any fool can see that. :rolleyes:

You're being overly simplistic.

You're also forgetting that at least 20% (statistics pulled out of my ass ftw!) of people will be bastards, according to any one point of view.

If you go in and destroy every single aspect of security, then those 20% people can do whatever they want.

Whether that be loot, be greedy or go kill people.

So yeah, the coalition is definitely responsible.

I think that many of the criticisms of the coalitions invasion of Iraq have been too media based and not enough real thought has gone into them. Basicly what lots of people have seen is that the coalition invades Iraq, the coalition defeats the Iraqi government, the aftermarth is bloody Ergo - we shouldnt have invaded because we caused the aftermarth.



Emm....theres actually far more reasons that the place shouldn't have been invaded....and theres been - in ways - far more serious consequences.

Well depending on how much you liked the previous government, the logical response is either to oppose the coalition forces or to celebrate because the dictatorship is goneWe've seen both.



How is it the coalition's fault if some of the Sunnis and Shia's hate each other to the point of wanting to chop each others heads off in some casesThey disbanded the army without having sufficient troops in place to control the populace, they gutted the government on a witch hunt for Saddam allies, failed to secure the boarder with Syria or Iran. I could go on...

You're being overly simplistic.

You're also forgetting that at least 20% (statistics pulled out of my ass ftw!) of people will be bastards, according to any one point of view.

If you go in and destroy every single aspect of security, then those 20% people can do whatever they want.

Whether that be loot, be greedy or go kill people.

So yeah, the coalition is definitely responsible.

The coalition is not responable for the actions of these people. It is responsable yes for not being fully able to deal with them, but that does not mittigate the fact that these people chose to act as they did

Basicly what lots of people have seen is that the coalition invades Iraq, the coalition defeats the Iraqi government, the aftermarth is bloody Ergo - we shouldnt have invaded because we caused the aftermarth.

I want to make this very clear WE DID NOT CAUSE THE AFTERMARTH DIRECTLY.

Colin Powell---You break it you own it.

"She was wearing a short skirt, so it's not my fault that I raped her"

I had a counter terrorism expert talk to our class shortly afetr september 11. He said that the goal of terrorists is to make a government look weak by not being able to stop them. If you for one second think that the terrorists are the fault of the coalition or iraq government, then the terrorists win. They also win if they get news coverage.
Either the expert was no expert, or they really simplified things to make them comprehensible to your class.

The purpose of a terrorist group is not some kind of particularly violent hoax to make X look bad. That is purile. Making X look bad (for instance by making them look weak) might be useful in achieving the actual goal, but it also might be unnecessary.

Take the current continued existence of the terrorists at issue.

As a result of a single attack, the US was virtually goaded into a war that Osama prefered to wage in the relative convinience of his own backyard, (close to his supply lines being only one major advantage for his kind of shanty operation). The US then, when one fat juicy rabbit they swore they'd roast is just about in the trap, turn face and go haring off after some irrelevent and lame rabbit they spotted out the corner of their eye, with the result being that they catch neither.

How weak and ineffectual does that look?

The US for all its vaunted glory cant catch one cave dwelling religious nut nor secure Afghanistan, nor Iraq to complete the picture of utter inadequacy. Trust me if the goal were to make the US government look weak, the terrorists could have packed up bags and headed off home for a cuppa completely satisfied with themselves, mission long since achieved.

I dont think there can be any real debate.

A person only has to see the facts of the whole to make a clear judgement.
There are two undeniable truths that simply cannot be debated.

1. Prior to invasion, Iraq was not cast into civil war.
Despite his shithead ideals, and ruthless behavior, Saddam did not tolerate insubordinaton, and even if its the only good he did, the peace was more or less kept.

2. Post invasion Iraq is heading into full out civil war between Sunni's and Shi'ites, with the Khurds taking it from both sides.

If Saddam had been left alive, and in charge, Iraq would still be a stable country. It might still be a bit of a rogue state, but remember, Hussein did allow the weapons inspectors and they found nothing.
The Coalition invaded and found nothing.

Suddenly, in the face of that blunder, the focus shifted to "liberating the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator" and thrusting a democracy upon people who were not only not ready for democracy, but never asked for it.

We all know that Hussein was a pimple on the ass of the world, theres no denying it. We all know the shitty things he did, and the type of man he was.
He deserved to die, no question.

BUT...

What price victory?

In order to kill this one guy, Bush starts an unjust and illegal invasion, wherein multiple lies are told to the entire world, and bullshit explanations are handed out like candy. Intelligence reports are not collected, so much as they are TOLD what information to collect. Agents are told to bring back only what Bush and Co want to hear.

Next, an entire government is brought down, and for the following four years and counting, Iraq is plunged into war and chaos.
All due to some bullshit lie, and a huge profit grab for Neo-Con supporters.

This was a war for money and power, and those responsible for it, have been flat out lying to us about it for almost 7 years.
Iraq was never about terrorism, it was never about Al-Qeada.

It was about securing Iraqi oil reserves and making huge profits for Haliburton, and others of Bushes "base".

The reason Iraq hasn't gone anywhere is because the Iraqi people don't have enough will power to change it. They're too afraid (WITH GOOD REASON) to do anything about it, the Sunnis and Shia want to have at it since their hatred has been oppressed for too long, and the majority of them feel the problem will eventually burn itself out. I however, don't see that happening any time in the near future.

They must unite or be destroyed.

The US for all its vaunted glory cant catch one cave dwelling religious nut nor secure Afghanistan, nor Iraq to complete the picture of utter inadequacy. Trust me if the goal were to make the US government look weak, the terrorists could have packed up bags and headed off home for a cuppa completely satisfied with themselves, mission long since achieved.


What makes you think were even looking for him?

In 2001,the guy was 65, and diebetic, and on dialysis twice a week.
You think hes got a dialysis machine in the bottom of a cave in the remote mountains of Pakistan?

Or maybe he snuck into America, or the UK, or Austraila, and checked into a state of the art medical facilty and recieved a pancreas and kidney transplant?

Hes a doornail, and The White House either fully knows it, or havent gotten any eye witness reports of a corpse, and wont just come out and admit it.

What makes you think were even looking for him?

In 2001,the guy was 65, and diebetic, and on dialysis twice a week.
You think hes got a dialysis machine in the bottom of a cave in the remote mountains of Pakistan?

Or maybe he snuck into America, or the UK, or Austraila, and checked into a state of the art medical facilty and recieved a pancreas and kidney transplant?

Hes a doornail, and The White House either fully knows it, or havent gotten any eye witness reports of a corpse, and wont just come out and admit it.


But suppose they cryogenically froze his head and one day in the distant future, it will be attached to a cyborg killing machine and destroy us all?

What makes you think were even looking for Osama Bin Laden?the raisins are green.. so we are no longer looking for him.. but If you tell US where he is.. we will happily give you 25 millions .

But suppose they cryogenically froze his head and one day in the distant future, it will be attached to a cyborg killing machine and destroy us all?

Damn, I was hoping they'd use it to splice his DNA with a giant cobra, to make an army of militant Lizard Men, with greasy beards and bad teeth.

the raisins are green.. so we are no longer looking for him.. but If you tell US where he is.. we will happily give you 25 millions .

AAANND....we'll throw in a weekend *cough*indefinate*cough* stay at our new beach resort Club Gitmo!

I think that many of the criticisms of the coalitions invasion of Iraq have been too media based and not enough real thought has gone into them. Basicly what lots of people have seen is that the coalition invades Iraq, the coalition defeats the Iraqi government, the aftermarth is bloody Ergo - we shouldnt have invaded because we caused the aftermarth.

I want to make this very clear WE DID NOT CAUSE THE AFTERMARTH DIRECTLY. It is not the fault of the US and UK governments and armies that the Iraqies let off sucide bombing after sucide bombing at each other. I can quite rightly see that some of the Iraqies would see the Coalition as evil and oppose them and attack them, but what I dont see the logic of is killing each other. For that we blame, not the USA and UK, but warped ideologies. Its not the fault of the coalition that these people want to kill each other. If you think about it, which of the following is NOT the logical response to an invasion

"Our country has been invaded, the dictator has been deposed, at last we can live freely"

"Our country has been invaded, the dictator has been deposed, who are these people to invade our land, let us kill them"

"Our country has been invaded, excellent now I can kill all those people I dont like in the chaos"
The first is the illogical response. The US in their world power arrogance surely thought they would be welcomed as liberators, but that's only because they knew and cared shit about the country they were going to invade based on fabricated 'evidence'. The US and its puppet ally UK are entirely responsible for the situation in Iraq. They opened the country for terrorists and gave them the possibilities to create the current chaos there. The coalition had not given a second of thought to the consequences of their irresponsible invasion, and they definitely had no plan for Iraq after Mr Hussein. That's just unacceptable, and Mr Bush should have been hanged alongside Mr Hussein for his war crimes and his contempt for Iraqi lives. And this is only one side of the issue. Let's not forget who supported Mr Hussein and strengthened his power as the tyrant of Iraq when he was the US's darling and top ally in the war against Iran. The US made the current situation in Iraq, and not just with their stupid invasion.

http://www.bhopal.net/opinions/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

And God bless America.