NationStates Jolt Archive

No longer a quagmire, no longer a "lost" war, with the future role of US troops (if any) as actual "peacekeepers" rather than as occupiers. The surge worked (i.e, if you say that invading Iraq was a mistake and a fatal quagmire was created, you were right on the first and wrong on the second).

Hopefully, we can call this "cleaned up", and go home. It looks like the surge brigades are already on their way home, with more to follow.

I wonder when Obama is going to say, "the surge was a good idea that worked - certainly better than leaving and doing nothing".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0

Going outside now to check for flying pigs, because I never believed the AP would ever say this:

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.

"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.

"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."

It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

Now THIS is good news.

I would be convinced when I would be certain that a Theocratic Shi'ite Republic of Irak would not rise.

The fightings against insurgents and a few thousands terrorists is not the most relevant issue in this war.

Edit: doesn't mean I am not glad to hear that the surge worked, I'm just very pessimist on the long run.

Now THIS is good news.

Yes, it is. The Iraqi government is more assertive, the Iraqi Army participates or runs more of the military operations, and it's good.

Not perfect, but well on the way to being something we can leave behind without saying, "well, we turned the place into a permanent fucking mess".

So your position is that things starting to go right after 5 years of constant casualities and no progress completely justifies rushing in with no long term strategy developed and insufficient number of troops with proper support not to mention corruption and nepotism in the aftermath? Noted.

Anyone else, I'd ask if you even bothered to read the article completely but it's you so no surprise really:

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting.

In other words, "Mission Accomplished!! Part Deux!!"

With a corrupt government lead by Maliki at the head of Iraq, not to mention constitutional amendments and treaty deals that essentially has Iraq bending over and taking it up the ass from the U.S. in economic and political aspects, the insurgency is far from dead. Hell, if we had the Taliban just a few inches away from extinction but fucked up and left them alone to recover to where they're winning the public opinion war in Afghanistan now, how can anyone say "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq after 5 years of pure hell?

Oh wait, it's you. You even admitted you never believed the Associated Press until someone there started singing a tune you liked.

Yes, it is. The Iraqi government is more assertive, the Iraqi Army participates or runs more of the military operations, and it's good.

Not perfect, but well on the way to being something we can leave behind without saying, "well, we turned the place into a permanent fucking mess".

Agree.
And this would be sincerely to your honor.
Even if the invasion of Irak is the greatest theft ever organized ( and I don't speak of oil, I speak of all this money who vanished in the militaro-industrial complex in corrupt contractors and programs who have nothing to do with War on Terror. )

Why do I have a feeling that a million pessimistic dumbasses are about to spam this thread for no fucking logical reason?

Iraq's got a long way to go, but it's definitely no longer the case that organized insurgents pose a major threat to the stability of the Iraqi government.

If anything, the combat from this point forward will be increasingly bloodless, based more on rooting out corruption, resolving remaining sectarian tensions, and ensuring that people remain confident in their government's ability to push forward with needed reforms. However, the more violence drops, the easier it will be for the Iraqi people and government to address these issues without the threat of triggering further instability.

I think if they succeed in passing a comprehensive oil revenues sharing bill, it will break the back of remaining resistance and lead to even greater declines in violence and accelerated development. It will also boost oil production considerably, which is a very good thing both for them and for the rest of the world economy; ideally, Iraq could become a major counterweight to nations like Iran and Venezuela, perhaps even moving towards close cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to reestablish the "swing producer" role lost during the increase in oil demand over the past decade.

Oh wait, it's you. You even admitted you never believed the Associated Press until someone there started singing a tune you liked.

No, I wouldn't believe it until they put people on the ground and sent them in harm's way.

Looks like they did so with this article, and the results of the reporting are refreshingly honest.

Quite unlike yours, which come from either your armchair pontificating, or sources who never set foot in Iraq in the combat areas.

There have been remarkably FEW reporters willingly to daily go into the actual combat areas.

No longer a quagmire, no longer a "lost" war, with the future role of US troops (if any) as actual "peacekeepers" rather than as occupiers. The surge worked

Or didn't. Since the biggest potential threat to stability AND the US has actually been playing a pretty much neutral role since before the surge troops arrived.

Al Sadr is perhaps the most important person in the arena at this moment, and he's been basically ignored. Not dealt with, not fought, not bought. As a lot of people said at the beginning - all the build-up of troops does, is cause people to move around a bit - they're not 'gone', we've not 'won'.

All we've done, perhaps, is made sure that Bush's promise that Iraq would dissolve in on itself, can come true.

And - the REAL problem is - Americans have such short memories, when Al Sadr DOES come back, during Obama's presidency, and tensions stir up again (although Al Sadr might play nice... might) - Republican hardliners will be pretending it's Obama's fault, and pushing it as an agenda for change at the next election.

Any good news in Iraq (if indeed this is genuine good news) is welcome in my books.

Any good news in Iraq (if indeed this is genuine good news) is welcome in my books.

You said it.

Any good news in Iraq (if indeed this is genuine good news) is welcome in my books.

Indeed. I just don't care much for Kimchi's spin that any sign of possible progress completely absolves the Dubya Administration of the horrid fuckups at the beginning of the invasion that lead to so many American and Iraqi casualties.

Indeed. I just don't care much for Kimchi's spin that any sign of possible progress completely absolves the Dubya Administration of the horrid fuckups at the beginning of the invasion that lead to so many American and Iraqi casualties.


It also presupposes that a US client state is somehow a good thing.

It also presupposes that a US client state is somehow a good thing.
How shocking. Anti-American Bias based on a few fuck ups. :eek2:

this is great news.

the sooner we decide we've WON (whatever that means, no matter what that means) the sooner we can get the fuck out.

Any good news in Iraq (if indeed this is genuine good news) is welcome in my books.
Indeed. Good news is good.

Now I'll just wait and see if this lasts, or if something happens. Like it did after the last time...

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/files/bush-mission.jpg

this is great news.

the sooner we decide we've WON (whatever that means, no matter what that means) the sooner we can get the fuck out.

There won't ever be a victory.

How shocking. Anti-American Bias based on a few fuck ups. :eek2:

???????????????

it doesnt matter. if we THINKwe've won, we can get out.

???????????????

Whats wrong with American Client states? Just because a few have been horrible dictorships, doesn't mean all of them were. Take West Germany.

Some progress at last, apparently.

it doesnt matter. if we THINKwe've won, we can get out.

:rolleyes:

it doesnt matter. if we THINKwe've won, we can get out.

And that's pathetic. We CAN get out RIGHT NOW. And should.

That people in this country have such a twisted need to "win" and be "right" that we will continue to occupy a foreign country just to serve that need is actually rather disgusting and I'm not going to respect it, no matter how many Hotwifes are braying like donkeys about it.

of course we should but george bush is still president and he is never going to do anything that might label him a failure. (stop laughing, its HIS delusion)

so if we can all PRETEND for a while that its all over and we have won, we can get the fuck out, get him out of office and start putting people on trial.

And that's pathetic. We CAN get out RIGHT NOW. And should.

That people in this country have such a twisted need to "win" and be "right" that we will continue to occupy a foreign country just to serve that need is actually rather disgusting and I'm not going to respect it, no matter how many Hotwifes are braying like donkeys about it.

Thats very presumptious of you. The situation isnt the need to win or be right, its the obligation under the "If you break it you buy it" doctrine. For good reason or bad, we are there. The situation needs to be fixed and done properly. We would be even more ethically corrupt then we already are to break the vase then turn and run out of the store.

Thats very presumptious of you. The situation isnt the need to win or be right, its the obligation under the "If you break it you buy it" doctrine. For good reason or bad, we are there. The situation needs to be fixed and done properly. We would be even more ethically corrupt then we already are to break the vase then turn and run out of the store.

I totally agree with you...USA can't just get out of Irak like a mobster fleeing a crime scene, even if you were absolutly and awfully wrong coming there, it's your mess now, and up to you to fix it.

Thats very presumptious of you. The situation isnt the need to win or be right

I guess the desperate grabbing at anything as 'victory' and 'right' is just a coincidence.

, its the obligation under the "If you break it you buy it" doctrine. For good reason or bad, we are there. The situation needs to be fixed and done properly. We would be even more ethically corrupt then we already are to break the vase then turn and run out of the store.

Tell me, do you think Nazi Germany had an obligation to - having 'broke' Poland - stay there and "fix" the solution? Since they would be even more corrupt if they were just to break the vase and then run out of the store?

Or does this magical, "We stay and occupy the nation even it's wrong" reasoning only work to justify US invasions?

Whats wrong with American Client states? Just because a few have been horrible dictorships, doesn't mean all of them were. Take West Germany.

That was done in a different era, in the West. This one is next to a state that has good reason to fear US intentions, in an area where the US is quite rightly distrusted by the general populace. Rather than create the basis for a stable country, they essentially dissolved the state bodies that ran and maintained the place, and farmed out the contracts to their cronies. It also looks like the lions share of oil revenue will be pissing out of there as well. They've essentially gone a good way down the road to creating a banana republic, with fuck all state infrastructure, dependent of Foriegn expertise, with a government relying on their backing to stay in power.

Then of course you can go into the deeper ethics of rewarding aggression, making a travesty of the idea of 'international justice' and so on......If Chad was to say that Gadaffi was an evil dictator (which he is), may have WMD, which he has used before (only mustard gas - he might, he has) and was planning to use them (who knows), jumped in their trucks, kicked him out of power and just happened to liberate the countries oil supply and resources for various Chad friendly corporations, while getting them access to a few ports to increase their influence, its not like they don't have a precedent now, is it?

Tell me, do you think Nazi Germany had an obligation to - having 'broke' Poland - stay there and "fix" the solution? Since they would be even more corrupt if they were just to break the vase and then run out of the store?

cause iraq=poland right, those damn poles, and their internal ethnic and religious conflicts going back centuries.

sooooo we broke it, we stay there forever no matter how much of a hash we make of it?

the army cant fix what we broke in iraq.

cause iraq=poland right

Because invasion=invasion, but feel free to miss the point and avoid the question.

, those damn poles, and their internal ethnic and religious conflicts going back centuries.

Oh! That's the key difference that makes the US occupation much more morally justified. So I guess if Poland had internecine warfare then Nazi Germany would have been justified in staying there to "fix" it, is that it?

"You break it you buy it." And that's what we're doing. Buying countries. Right?

sooooo we broke it, we stay there forever no matter how much of a hash we make of it?

the army cant fix what we broke in iraq.

Primarily because they weren't the ones that broke it. That was the CPA.

Tell me, do you think Nazi Germany had an obligation to - having 'broke' Poland - stay there and "fix" the solution?


What the fuck? Of course they were. Nobody expected them to do of course, but that would have been, at that current time, the very best thing they could have done.

What the fuck? Of course they were. Nobody expected them to do of course, but that would have been, at that current time, the very best thing they could have done.

Um. Alrighty then. Okay we have one vote for the Final Solution, anyone else?

Primarily because they weren't the ones that broke it. That was the CPA.
what does cpa stand for?

Um. Alrighty then. Okay we have one vote for the Final Solution, anyone else?

Right, because that's exactly what Hydesland said. Nothing about post-war Germany being obligated to repairing the countries they destroyed. Nope, he advocated racial genocide and you caught him. Well done.

Um. Alrighty then. Okay we have one vote for the Final Solution, anyone else?

No, obviously by fix I don't mean what the Nazi's thought constituted fixing the problem, a.k.a eliminating inferior peoples. By fix I mean reverse all the damage they have done to the people and give them back their self determination.

Because invasion=invasion, but feel free to miss the point and avoid the question.



Oh! That's the key difference that makes the US occupation much more morally justified. So I guess if Poland had internecine warfare then Nazi Germany would have been justified in staying there to "fix" it, is that it?

"You break it you buy it." And that's what we're doing. Buying countries. Right?

Tell me, do you think Nazi Germany had an obligation to - having 'broke' Poland - stay there and "fix" the solution?
I answered your question actually.

Also, if you leaving will result in more people being killed than necessary, then yes, that is morally reprehensible.

what does cpa stand for?

Coaltion Provisional Authority. Paul "the haircut" Bremmer & co.

No, obviously by fix I don't mean what the Nazi's thought constituted fixing the problem, a.k.a eliminating inferior peoples. By fix I mean reverse all the damage they have done to the people and give them back their self determination.

Well, by 'fix' we clearly mean what the US thinks constitutes fixing the problem. In both cases though it seems to be - staying and occupying the country. Forgive me if I don't get all warm and gushy about the concept of giving people self-determination through invasion and years of armed occupation.

Right, because that's exactly what Hydesland said. Nothing about post-war Germany being obligated to repairing the countries they destroyed.

Correct, he said absolutely nothing about post-war Germany or reparations. Neither of us was talking about post-war Germany, in fact the exact phrase was "Nazi Germany."

I know you meant that as cheeky sarcasm, but it sadly failed because you weren't actually following along. Maybe next time though, eh?

I answered your question actually.

Not using written text you didn't.

Also, if you leaving will result in more people being killed than necessary, then yes, that is morally reprehensible.

It was morally reprehensible to invade in the first place. To stay is only to compound, reinforce and try to justify that immorality. You people are making like it's wrong to invade a country - particularly for the BS reasons used in Iraq - but it's somehow even worse to withdraw. A pretty convenient opinion that seems to do nothing but support might-makes-right.

I mean that's the actual argument, isn't it? Iraq has "problems" and the only way to make them "right" is by keeping the armed might of the US firmly in the country? Might makes right, literally. Oh well as long as GW Bush feels happy and we adhere to US Business Principles.

Shit, I'm a capitalist and even I am absolutely disgusted with this comparison of "You break it, you buy it." We're not SHOPPING. What we did was more like break IN to the store. It's not, "You break in, you stay there for years!"

Coaltion Provisional Authority. Paul "the haircut" Bremmer & co.

that is us.

the army still cant fix it.

I'm really confused as to what people's definition of winning is... For instance, we have clearly won militarily. For instance there have been well over 20,000 insurgent deaths since the fighting began, while 4k us soldiers have died. There have been months in which 1,600 insurgents had been killed while the US lost 53.

On top of that we essentially control Iraq. When exactly were we losing the war?

. What we did was more like break IN to the store. It's not, "You break in, you stay there for years!"

...take a share of the profits, set the working hours, oversee hirings and firings, attack/intimidate the store next door.....and sit there with a big fat smug self righteous grin, because theres no one to do anything about it.

that is us.

the army still cant fix it.

I know. Thats what I was saying.

Forgive me if I don't get all warm and gushy about the concept of giving people self-determination through invasion and years of armed occupation.


I never said I supported the initial invasion, but the very worst most morally disgusting thing you can do after you've totally fucked over a country is to just fuck off and leave them to rot. You're naive if you think that the newly formed Iraqi government could keep the country stable on their own, they absolutely need NATOs help with that.

this is great news.

the sooner we decide we've WON (whatever that means, no matter what that means) the sooner we can get the fuck out.

Seconded.

I know. Thats what I was saying.
oh ok. i must be tired

Whats wrong with American Client states? Just because a few have been horrible dictorships, doesn't mean all of them were. Take West Germany.

Client states are bad. Period. Doesn't matter whose they are.

The fact a 'good' state like the US has client states actually gives 'bad' states to justification to have their own. See Soviet Union.

So, yeh. The very existence of US client states is bad news.

this is great news.

the sooner we decide we've WON (whatever that means, no matter what that means) the sooner we can get the fuck out.

(And, if it helps bring the troops home, I am willing to ignore the fact that 'a win in Iraq' basically means 'undoing all the fuck-ups we made).

what does cpa stand for?

Something to do with chartered accountants, I think...

(And, if it helps bring the troops home, I am willing to ignore the fact that 'a win in Iraq' basically means 'undoing all the fuck-ups we made).
if that was what they meant by winning, it really would be good news.

if that was what they meant by winning, it really would be good news.

The problem is - it's not what they mean.

What they mean is that violence has died down since the surge. They don't make any account for how or why. That's the big problem.

In effect, AP are guilty here, too - they've seen the kerosene on the firewood, seen that the firs isn't actually burning at the minute, and yelled "Bloody hell! Kerosene puts out fires!"

And then - like I said - everyone's gonna act all surprised again, when the power struggles start all over again when Al Sadr decides he's had enough of letting everyone else fight it out.

And the Bush-pundits will say "See, we were right! Chaos in Iraq when we left", and not admit to the fact that all we did was hide the problems.

The problem is - it's not what they mean.

What they mean is that violence has died down since the surge. They don't make any account for how or why. That's the big problem.

In effect, AP are guilty here, too - they've seen the kerosene on the firewood, seen that the firs isn't actually burning at the minute, and yelled "Bloody hell! Kerosene puts out fires!"

And then - like I said - everyone's gonna act all surprised again, when the power struggles start all over again when Al Sadr decides he's had enough of letting everyone else fight it out.

And the Bush-pundits will say "See, we were right! Chaos in Iraq when we left", and not admit to the fact that all we did was hide the problems.


yeah, i know.

but it would would be nice if there were some way to undo our fuckup of iraq. not that there is, or that that is what they meant.

maybe they can hold off until we have removed most of our troops...

No, obviously by fix I don't mean what the Nazi's thought constituted fixing the problem, a.k.a eliminating inferior peoples. By fix I mean reverse all the damage they have done to the people and give them back their self determination.

By that logic, someone must then utterly devastate America's infrastructure, kill about 15% of its population through aerial firebombing, topple its government, and then set up a new one focused on fixing its original mess. Unless of course, you were advocating that Nazi Germany be left alone and told to fix the mess.

I never said I supported the initial invasion, but the very worst most morally disgusting thing you can do after you've totally fucked over a country is to just fuck off and leave them to rot.

Right. It's immoral to invade, but it's even more immoral to leave! You can't do that! You have to stay there and keep fucking them over, fuck them over for years and years!

Fuck that bullshit. The most moral thing any invader can do is leave. Staying is just imperialistic conquest.

You're naive if you think that the newly formed Iraqi government could keep the country stable on their own, they absolutely need NATOs help with that.

Oh? But you yourself were braying triumphantly about giving them "self dependence" and liberating them and all that shit. Well, let's see how liberated we made them.

You see, I could care less if the country's political stability falls apart. I'm concerned with not being an invading, conquering nation of douchebags. I'm concerned with NOT compounding one evil by repeating it again and again just because YOU are morally confused.

Wow.. Isn't it kind of early for this change in views? I mean Obama hasn't even won yet.

Wow.. Isn't it kind of early for this change in views? I mean Obama hasn't even won yet.
what change is that?

They've essentially gone a good way down the road to creating a banana republic, with fuck all state infrastructure, dependent of Foriegn expertise, with a government relying on their backing to stay in power.

Actually, that basically describes every single country in the Middle East and Central Asia other than Israel, Algeria and Turkey.

Iraq was no different before the war, with a dictator whose power rested entirely in the favor of the United States and the Soviet Union and whose economy was corrupt and tattered and supported only by the flow of oil money and foreign expertise bought with that money.

Iraq was no different before the war, with a dictator whose power rested entirely in the favor of the United States and the Soviet Union and whose economy was corrupt and tattered and supported only by the flow of oil money and foreign expertise bought with that money.

Except Saddam Hussein kept Iraq from boiling over into the sectarian shitfest it became after his overthrow throuh fear and equal-opportunity brutality against anyone he perceived as a threat to his power. Your religious orientation didn't matter as long as you didn't get in his way. Iraqi Christians were fairly secure during his reign and after the invasion they were open to being picked off and terrorized by Islamic extremists of the Taliban persuasion.

Tell me, do you think Nazi Germany had an obligation to - having 'broke' Poland - stay there and "fix" the solution? Since they would be even more corrupt if they were just to break the vase and then run out of the store?

Nazi Germany invaded Poland because they wanted to annex and convert it in to a piece of Greater Germany. That's a big difference from the US's actions in Iraq; now, if we were to deport Iraqis by the thousands and move in our own citizens in order to make Iraq the 51st state, the situation would be quite a bit different.

AP Now Says We're Winning in Iraq <Snip>

He does? When did Andaras ever say that?
.
.
.
.
.
Oh you're refering to the Associated Press...
NVM

Iraq was no different before the war, with a dictator whose power rested entirely in the favor of the United States and the Soviet Union and whose economy was corrupt and tattered and supported only by the flow of oil money and foreign expertise bought with that money.


While the economy was indeed based largely on petroleum, there was indeed a native infrastructure in Iraq, though one badly damaged by the war with Iran and the 1st Gulf war. Eg
Until the early 1990s, Iraq's healthcare system was considered one of the most advanced in the Middle East. Following the Gulf War, it began to deteriorate. Prior to the Iraq War, healthcare spending amounted to 50 cents (US) per Iraqi per year. Today, the Iraqi healthcare system has regressed to a chronic and smoldering condition. Infections are widespread, the infant mortality rate has surged, and medical shortages all threaten the once functioning medical system.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq

Millions of Iraqis have little or no access to clean water, sanitation and healthcare, five years after the US-led invasion, according to the Red Cross.
The Swiss-based agency says Iraq's humanitarian situation is "among the most critical in the world".

It warned that despite better security in some areas, millions had been left essentially to fend for themselves.

Some families spend a third of their average monthly wage of $150 (£75) just buying clean water, the report found.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299914.stm

Nazi Germany invaded Poland because they wanted to annex and convert it in to a piece of Greater Germany. That's a big difference from the US's actions in Iraq; now, if we were to deport Iraqis by the thousands and move in our own citizens in order to make Iraq the 51st state, the situation would be quite a bit different.

More like the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem, but not on such a slow drip.

Nazi Germany invaded Poland because they wanted to annex and convert it in to a piece of Greater Germany. That's a big difference from the US's actions in Iraq

Also, Germans spoke German, and Americans speak English.

Also, Poland was invaded in the 20th century, whereas Iraq was invaded in the 21st.

These are two other big differences. Like the big difference you pointed out, however, they are completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

US invaded Iraq. Full stop.

Germany invaded Poland. Full stop.

The subject here is "you break it, you buy it," with "breaking" being a euphemism for invading a foreign country, overthrowing their government and killing lots of people.

And "buy it" is a euphemism for staying there with an armed occupation force for an indefinite amount of time.

If "you break it, you buy it" is a reason America should stay in Iraq despite the immorality of the invasion, then it is also a reason why Nazi Germany should have stayed in Poland despite the immorality of their invasion.

Get it?

LOL yesss and now we can move on to Afghanistan and keep on with our War of Terror? Awesome! And then Pakistan will get even more fucked up because one of its border countries is getting bombed and even MORE taliban will cross the border into NWFP (North Western Frontier Province) and Peshawar will become Ex-Mujaheddin paradise! Score! Or maybe America will sink its teeth into Iran, although I'm sure they would find that Iran is a much harder prey to fell than Iraq, and America will summarily find itself shit out of luck, now if America was to try to go home, that would also made this "Pronouncement of Victory" even MORE so fucking hilarious. Ok that's enough for me... lol

By that logic, someone must then utterly devastate America's infrastructure, kill about 15% of its population through aerial firebombing, topple its government, and then set up a new one focused on fixing its original mess. Unless of course, you were advocating that Nazi Germany be left alone and told to fix the mess.

That is completely incoherent to me, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think hes saying that America has become a fascist nazi state and needs to be taken care of like we did the last one?

Right. It's immoral to invade, but it's even more immoral to leave!

Strawman, I never said it was 'even more' immoral, just immoral.


You have to stay there and keep fucking them over, fuck them over for years and years!


Nonsense, staying does not constitute 'fucking them over', the ones fucking over Iraq at the moment are the insurgents, not NATO. NATO caused the insurgency to increase with the invasion, the worst thing they can do is let these guys take control and the only way to stop them is through military force. Whether they're not fixing Iraq the right way or not is irrelevant, it doesn't give an excuse for them to leave, only to change their methods.


Fuck that bullshit. The most moral thing any invader can do is leave. Staying is just imperialistic conquest.


Mindless rhetoric. Also you're completely conflating issues. Staying and fixing the problem is one issue, whether the US will keep Iraq as a client state (something that could be called imperialism) after it is stable is a totally separate issue.


You see, I could care less if the country's political stability falls apart.

Right, so you don't care about Iraq, or the people at all, but rather your image, nice one.


I'm concerned with not being an invading, conquering nation of douchebags.

You're way too late for that.


I'm concerned with NOT compounding one evil by repeating it again and again just because YOU are morally confused.

Invading a country, destroying everything and creating chaos, and then running away, not helping them at all, is the very worst way any nation can ever invade a country.

Nonsense, staying does not constitute 'fucking them over', the ones fucking over Iraq at the moment are the insurgents,.

I think that the following example would qualify very much as "fucking them over" (my apologies for the size of the c&p).

The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Of course the fact that discontent over the Foreign share of Irans oil wealth did a great deal to undermine the Shah just next door hasn't stopped the vultures grabbing what they can....I mean, whats the point of history if you have to learn from it.....

>>Owned<<

For all of those arm-chair American critics who see blame in everything we do in the world(oh yeah, those planes ramming into the twin towers were our fault)...I would like to propose a new political party for you to join....Let's call it the B.A.F. party. The "Blame America First" party. Then you could all sit around and figure out ways to blame America for all the problems in the world. And the rest of us would not have to listen to you spew hatred about America.

That is completely incoherent to me, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Because according to your statement, either Nazi Germany should have been left alone and asked to clean up its mess in Poland, or bombed into submission, had its government overthrown, and then forced to clean up its mess in Poland.

By that logic, one of the two options should then apply to America. If you advocate the former, you cannot, short of double standards, argue that Nazi Germany should have been forced to do so, and by implication, support Nazi Germany's public attempts to do so, regardless of whether they were really doing it. If you advocate that Nazi Germany should have been toppled and then forced to clean up, so too, should America be subjected to the same conditions.

America may not be running industrial murder facilities just yet, but by no means are its hands clean.

For all of those arm-chair American critics who see blame in everything we do in the world(oh yeah, those planes ramming into the twin towers were our fault)...I would like to propose a new political party for you to join....Let's call it the B.A.F. party. The "Blame America First" party. Then you could all sit around and figure out ways to blame America for all the problems in the world. And the rest of us would not have to listen to you spew hatred about America.

Oh, this is about blaming America now? And hating it?

How funny.

Only it's not funny at all, and I TIRE OF THIS SHIT!

You invaded a country! Destroyed its infrastructure and killed an untold number of people, in both sides, screwing yourself up in the process. BOTH America and Iraq would be better off if you hadn't invaded and raped a country, and all for a big pile of NOTHING! And you then have the gall to come here and accuse US, the people that alerted you against this, for your own good, of hating America? Have you no shame? How DARE you? Look at you, an internet troll with no life of his own, trying to equate criticism with hatred, just like they do in the dictatorships you CLAIM to be against! And only "claim" it is, because, deep down, I think, nay, I KNOW you would like America to be a big old police state, where "haters", make that "critics", are taken to concentration camps. All the while you think America should be like this, which would get your forefathers rolling in their graves!

And YOU come here and try to admonish US? Us, your betters? Us, the people that are actually trying to improve America and the world, all the while you openly spew bullshit about criticism equalling hatred?

You? Look at yourself, and be ashamed! Now get off our lawn and go sit in the corner! After that, feel free to look up what "democracy" actually means. If I never have to deal with you spouting this utter BULLSHIT about criticism equalling hatred again, it'll be too soon!

You should be downright ashamed of yourself!

And this goes to all of you here who made such claims or think so as well. That I picked two-post-wonder here as my victim does not exonerate anyone that thinks like him.

The subject here is "you break it, you buy it," with "breaking" being a euphemism for invading a foreign country, overthrowing their government and killing lots of people.

And "buy it" is a euphemism for staying there with an armed occupation force for an indefinite amount of time.

If "you break it, you buy it" is a reason America should stay in Iraq despite the immorality of the invasion, then it is also a reason why Nazi Germany should have stayed in Poland despite the immorality of their invasion.

Get it?

"You break it, you buy it" seems to be one of those pithy phrases people can choose to misinterpret depending on their whim.

Surely you would agree that it is the responsibility of an aggressor to repair the damage done by its aggression? Now in an ideal world, this could be done by a third, neutral party, funded by the aggressor (NATO, UN perhaps). Unfortunately there are problems with this:

1) The lack of international manpower outside of a superpower that can provide security for an entire (large) country whose army has been completely disbanded and purged
2) If the aggressor does not want to be responsible for people on the ground in a country (be it military or civilian) they can be accused of shirking their responsibilities (others could say "It's not my job to clear up someone else's mess")
3) The Iraq invasion was unilateral, and once you sideline international multilateral organisations, do you really expect them to then come and help? It shows tacit approval, and also sends a message to potential aggressors that they don't need to worry about cleaning up the mess they leave.

The practicalities of the moral imperative involved in "you break it, you buy it" demand a presence on the ground, until infrastructure is repaired, or there is sufficient security and diplomatic acceptance for a multilateral effort. To put it succinctly; America is stuck, and has fucked up whilst stuck.

If you just 'leave', how is the situation better? A country with no power, water, economy, army.. But with warlords, religious rivalry and a hostile militaristic neighbour. You could end up with the anarchy of Somalia but in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on Earth. Not good.

So yes, Nazi Germany had an obligation to repair - an obligation that may have necessitated some degree of limited and temporary occupation before withdrawal. However, the occupation that ACTUALLY occurred in WW2 was reprehensible and horrific, and for the purposes of forced labour and extermination.

I think that the following example would qualify very much as "fucking them over" (my apologies for the size of the c&p).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Of course the fact that discontent over the Foreign share of Irans oil wealth did a great deal to undermine the Shah just next door hasn't stopped the vultures grabbing what they can....I mean, whats the point of history if you have to learn from it.....

Yeah yeah yeah, I'm aware of all this. As I already pointed out, just because you disagree with how the US has approached the oil situation in this case does not give an excuse to completely run away. Trotstia seemed to be suggesting that fucking over Iraq was inherent in staying there in an attempt to fix the problem, which is of course complete rubbish.

Because according to your statement, either Nazi Germany should have been left alone and asked to clean up its mess in Poland, or bombed into submission, had its government overthrown, and then forced to clean up its mess in Poland.


Errr, that's not what I'm saying.


By that logic, one of the two options should then apply to America. If you advocate the former, you cannot, short of double standards, argue that Nazi Germany should have been forced to do so, and by implication, support Nazi Germany's public attempts to do so, regardless of whether they were really doing it. If you advocate that Nazi Germany should have been toppled and then forced to clean up, so too, should America be subjected to the same conditions.

America may not be running industrial murder facilities just yet, but by no means are its hands clean.

I'm not talking about force, I'm hypothesising about Germany's OWN choice, not the choice of the allied forces. Germany's choice was to either continue with its expansionism resulting in war with the allies, or it could choose to pull back and release control over Poland and Czechoslovakia etc... However just leaving may still leave the countries in ruins, even better STILL would be for Germany to help the countries back onto their feet.

Errr, that's not what I'm saying.

Well, I was subjecting your statements, that being of WWII era Germany fixing it's mess in Poland, with some logical bearings on how that would have actually played out.


I'm not talking about force, I'm hypothesising about Germany's OWN choice, not the choice of the allied forces. Germany's choice was to either continue with its expansionism resulting in war with the allies, or it could choose to pull back and release control over Poland and Czechoslovakia etc... However just leaving may still leave the countries in ruins, even better STILL would be for Germany to help the countries back onto their feet.

Ahh, the unlikely hypothesis. Sort of like the Chinese, Russians or Koreans asking Genghis Khan nicely if he and his horde would kindly leave them alone and not loot, pillage, murder and rape their populace even if they didn't want to be part of the Mongol empire and hoping it turns out that way.

Well, I was subjecting your statements, that being of WWII era Germany fixing it's mess in Poland, with some logical bearings on how that would have actually played out.


How it would have actually happened is not relevant.


Ahh, the unlikely hypothesis. Sort of like the Chinese, Russians or Koreans asking Genghis Khan nicely if he and his horde would kindly leave them alone and not loot, pillage, murder and rape their populace even if they didn't want to be part of the Mongol empire and hoping it turns out that way.

How unrealistic it is is also irrelevant. I'm talking about what Hitler should have done, not would have.

I dare say, anyone who compares America to Nazi Germany in such a case has no historical knowledge, nor any military knowledge or tact.

Anyone who thinks we can pull out now is ignorant (which has a bad connotation I do not wish to give, however, it's the best word for the fact) of the scenario.

Iraq's military must be rebuilt. There is no "Instant Government, Just Add Water" formula. The fact that in such a short time we've helped them get to where they are now is absolutely astounding, and the Iraqi peoples deserve much well earned respect for the cooperation they've given and their still intact individuality - especially the Kurds.

Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that it can take at minimum, four years, for an officer to be fully trained, even longer for the high-ranking officer. Some jobs can take as long as two years to train for, some even four. While we may start pulling back more very soon, we can't do an instant pullback.

"You break it, you buy it" seems to be one of those pithy phrases people can choose to misinterpret depending on their whim.

Surely you would agree that it is the responsibility of an aggressor to repair the damage done by its aggression?

Repairing damage to pottery involves glue. The only tool we brought for our repair work was a hammer.

Repairing damage to pottery involves glue. The only tool we brought for our repair work was a hammer.

Can I sig this? :D

Repairing damage to pottery involves glue. The only tool we brought for our repair work was a hammer.

Yes, but using the wrong tool does not absolve you from the responsibility to repair. America is stuck there until it sticks it back together. The years spent trying to use a hammer means more years of using glue.

*stretches metaphor*

Yes, but using the wrong tool does not absolve you from the responsibility to repair. America is stuck there until it sticks it back together. The years spent trying to use a hammer means more years of using glue.

*stretches metaphor*

Or you could hire a potter to repair it with the proper tools.

If he's a British little fellow called Harry, though, you...

Oh boy. Did I just turn a metaphor into a reference to J. K. Rowling?

For all of those arm-chair American critics who see blame in everything we do in the world(oh yeah, those planes ramming into the twin towers were our fault)...I would like to propose a new political party for you to join....Let's call it the B.A.F. party. The "Blame America First" party. Then you could all sit around and figure out ways to blame America for all the problems in the world. And the rest of us would not have to listen to you spew hatred about America.

are you suggesting that the war in iraq is not our fault and that any downside of it must not be discussed because the truth has some kind of anti-american bias?

Yes, but using the wrong tool does not absolve you from the responsibility to repair. America is stuck there until it sticks it back together. The years spent trying to use a hammer means more years of using glue.

*stretches metaphor*

well now, we do have a responsibility to "fix" iraq as much as is possible BUT that does not mean that we have to stay there militarily until .... someone....decides that its as fixed as it can get.

and we MUST NOT stay any longer than we are welcome by the government of iraq. when they tell us to go, we have to go.

Or you could hire a potter to repair it with the proper tools.

If he's a British little fellow called Harry, though, you...

Oh boy. Did I just turn a metaphor into a reference to J. K. Rowling?


Not if you have alienated the whole potter's union, and have most available clay in the world. Don't get me started on kilns.

*sound of metaphor going Ker-TWAAANG*

Wizard!

Yeah yeah yeah, I'm aware of all this. As I already pointed out, just because you disagree with how the US has approached the oil situation in this case does not give an excuse to completely run away. Trotstia seemed to be suggesting that fucking over Iraq was inherent in staying there in an attempt to fix the problem, which is of course complete rubbish.

I would contend that if the US stays there, its not to fix the "problem", its merely ending resistance for its own ends. Buying loyalty rather than winning it, propping up rather than letting fall.

I would contend that if the US stays there, its not to fix the "problem", its merely ending resistance for its own ends. Buying loyalty rather than winning it, propping up rather than letting fall.
And I would contend that ending terrorist attacks is to the benefit of the Iraqi population at large, whatever ulterior motives there may be for doing so.

And I would contend that ending terrorist attacks is to the benefit of the Iraqi population at large

Yeah, right, like that's going to happen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)...

There are a few reasons why violent attacks in Iraq have become fewer (although I don't think the violence will end, whether we go or stay, not until another strongman emerges who will probably be just as bad as Saddam in his own way), quite independent of the "surge". One reason is that the violence has largely succeeded: no Christians are being killed in Iraq anymore, because there are no Christians left in Iraq; there are no ethnic conflicts in mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad anymore, because there are no mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. More optimistically, though, some violent groups have lost strength because the Iraqis themselves have gotten tired of them; Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia in the Sunnite regions, and Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in the Shi'ite regions, have both faced serious backlash.

Why do I have a feeling that a million pessimistic dumbasses are about to spam this thread for no fucking logical reason?

Because liberal dumbasses, a redundant term, are very predictable.

Freeing 25 million people from tyranny is a wonderful thing. A thing that anti-American leftists have no capacity of being able to see. All people deserve to be free and the left, starting a long time ago, has definitely forgotten this.

We have spent our own blood and money to give 25 million people, 50 if you are willing to count Afghanistan, a fighting chance to be free and live in a free society. What will they do with it? Who knows but at least they have been given a chance.

Iraq's got a long way to go, but it's definitely no longer the case that organized insurgents pose a major threat to the stability of the Iraqi government.

If anything, the combat from this point forward will be increasingly bloodless, based more on rooting out corruption, resolving remaining sectarian tensions, and ensuring that people remain confident in their government's ability to push forward with needed reforms. However, the more violence drops, the easier it will be for the Iraqi people and government to address these issues without the threat of triggering further instability.

I think if they succeed in passing a comprehensive oil revenues sharing bill, it will break the back of remaining resistance and lead to even greater declines in violence and accelerated development. It will also boost oil production considerably, which is a very good thing both for them and for the rest of the world economy; ideally, Iraq could become a major counterweight to nations like Iran and Venezuela, perhaps even moving towards close cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to reestablish the "swing producer" role lost during the increase in oil demand over the past decade.

I agree with you.

It also presupposes that a US client state is somehow a good thing.

And Iraq is not a client state so that is one more conspiracy out the window.

Freeing 25 million people from tyranny is a wonderful thing.
Makes one wonder why America didn't invade much earlier, and why there was all that talk about WMD's.
A thing that anti-American leftists have no capacity of being able to see. All people deserve to be free and the left, starting a long time ago, has definitely forgotten this.
Crazy leftists and their hivemind.

We have spent our own blood and money to give 25 million people, 50 if you are willing to count Afghanistan, a fighting chance to be free and live in a free society. What will they do with it? Who knows but at least they have been given a chance.

Pity you had to wreck the country so badly to do it. Even more of a pity that such a thing was a by-product of the invasion rather than an objective. But who cares if you invaded a sovereign nation because you thought they might have WMD's, all that matters now is that we ignore that and focus on the good things.

TOLD YOU SO! SURGE WORKED!

Who said it would work, oh, John McCain that's who. And who said it wouldn't? Barack Obama that's who.

No longer a quagmire, no longer a "lost" war, with the future role of US troops (if any) as actual "peacekeepers" rather than as occupiers. The surge worked (i.e, if you say that invading Iraq was a mistake and a fatal quagmire was created, you were right on the first and wrong on the second).

Hopefully, we can call this "cleaned up", and go home. It looks like the surge brigades are already on their way home, with more to follow.

I wonder when Obama is going to say, "the surge was a good idea that worked - certainly better than leaving and doing nothing".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0

Going outside now to check for flying pigs, because I never believed the AP would ever say this:
You forget that this is NSG. Every white cloud has a dark lining...

Obama will NEVER admit that the surge was a good idea, or even that it caused the "Sunni Awakening" that he credits for most of the good that has happened.

Obama will NEVER admit that the surge was a good idea, or even that it caused the "Sunni Awakening" that he credits for most of the good that has happened.
An event that happened later cannot be called a "cause" of an event that happened earlier.

Makes one wonder why America didn't invade much earlier, and why there was all that talk about WMD's.

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them. No lying involved, just bad intelligence on behalf of nearly every intelligence agency in the world. Not to mention that WMDs were a very small part of the reason for liberating Iraq. Yes, "liberating".

Crazy leftists and their hivemind.

Agreed.

Pity you had to wreck the country so badly to do it. Even more of a pity that such a thing was a by-product of the invasion rather than an objective. But who cares if you invaded invaded a sovereign nation because you thought they might have WMD's, all that matters now is that we ignore that and focus on the good things.

Pity we had to kill alot of Americans to free American slaves. Pity we had to kill alot of Americans, Asians, and Europeans to stop German and Japanese imperialism. Pity. But I stand by the results. Sometimes you have to fight a war to free people and in war people die.

You believe that being a "sovereign nation" gives you the right to oppress the citizens of that nation. I don't. I believe all people want to be free, even little brown Muslim ones. You don't. I am sure Saddam treated his people, at least the ones who avoided his attentions, very well.

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.
Ohhhh yes, I forgot that day when the world population got together and gave the US the full rights and responsibility as the world's policeman.

I believe there's a giant sheriff's badge stuck into Oklahoma...

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them.
Uh, the whole world thought we were talking rubbish, and said so very loudly. Don't you remember?

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them. No lying involved, just bad intelligence on behalf of nearly every intelligence agency in the world. Not to mention that WMDs were a very small part of the reason for liberating Iraq. Yes, "liberating".
Maybe I had my head under a rock or something, because I don't remember hearing anything about freeing the Iraqi people until after the invasion. And Saddam was in power for a long time. If the suspicion of the existence of WMD's was only a small part of the reason for invading Iraq, then why did the invasion occur shortly after this intelligence came to light? Didn't seem like America was too worried about him being a tyrant until they thought he could actually attack them.



Agreed.
:rolleyes:



Pity we had to kill alot of Americans to free American slaves. Pity we had to kill alot of Americans, Asians, and Europeans to stop German and Japanese imperialism. Pity. But I stand by the results. Sometimes you have to fight a war to free people and in war people die.
Unfortunately, yes.

You believe that being a "sovereign nation" gives you the right to oppress the citizens of that nation. I don't. I believe all people want to be free, even little brown Muslim ones. You don't. I am sure Saddam treated his people, at least the ones who avoided his attentions, very well.

It amuses me that you presume to tell me what I think. I suppose I could try to contradict you, but really, what would be the point? You'll just tell me that I don't know what I think. I am, apparently, disconnected somehow from my own thought process, but you are intimately aware of it.

Uh, the whole world thought we were talking rubbish, and said so very loudly.
Including several intelligence agencies and the UN's weapons inspectors.

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them. No lying involved, just bad intelligence on behalf of nearly every intelligence agency in the world. Not to mention that WMDs were a very small part of the reason for liberating Iraq. Yes, "liberating".

Complete and utter bullshit. Or, if you prefer, lies and an underhanded attempt to rewrite history.

America "gave Saddam a chance to come clean" but didn't allow him to use the opportunity before invading. There were serious flaws in cooperation, but none that justified the illegal invasion.

The talk about WMD was not ever "a very small part". It was the single most important rationale and justification for the invasion. It was because of the WMD the Bush administration the Bush administration acted, even if it was on faulty and manipulated evidence.

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them. No lying involved, just bad intelligence on behalf of nearly every intelligence agency in the world. Not to mention that WMDs were a very small part of the reason for liberating Iraq. Yes, "liberating".

Don't you see the double think here?

Saddam had the chance to come clean and give up his weapons of mass destruction but didn't and ths justifies the invasion, but then you admit he didn't have any to give up. And yes, it was an invasion.

Edit: I just thought I'd add:

On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.

Saddam was cooperating before the invasion.

Ohhhh yes, I forgot that day when the world population got together and gave the US the full rights and responsibility as the world's policeman.

I believe there's a giant sheriff's badge stuck into Oklahoma...

UN Security Council resolution 1441 was a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

They did not comply and the opportunity was final. No, the world population did not give us the responsibility to be the world's policeman but the UN did give us the right to enter Iraq. And considering the 26 partners we entered into Iraq with (the UK, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Lithuania, Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Norway and the Netherlands) I would hardly say that the world was against us.

Uh, the whole world thought we were talking rubbish, and said so very loudly. Don't you remember?

I remember quite clearly. NATO intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, the UN, Jordanian intelligence, French intelligence, etc. all said that Saddam was hiding weapons and weapons programs from inspectors.

Don't you remember?

I suppose I could try to contradict you, but really, what would be the point? You'll just tell me that I don't know what I think. I am, apparently, disconnected somehow from my own thought process, but you are intimately aware of it.

I am quite sure you know what you think. You, however, are unaware of the facts that should be influencing that thought process. Sure, you could try to contradict me but you would lack the factual basis to do so.

You are not disconnected from your thought process. You are disconnected from reality.

Including several intelligence agencies and the UN's weapons inspectors.

Name them. Point out one intelligence agency that loudly proclaimed Saddam's lack of weapon programs and material BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. Not even Blix reported as much. Put up or shut up.

Name them. Point out one intelligence agency that loudly proclaimed Saddam's lack of weapon programs and material BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. Not even Blix reported as much. Put up or shut up.

Iraqs'?

Complete and utter bullshit. Or, if you prefer, lies and an underhanded attempt to rewrite history.

America "gave Saddam a chance to come clean" but didn't allow him to use the opportunity before invading. There were serious flaws in cooperation, but none that justified the illegal invasion.

The talk about WMD was not ever "a very small part". It was the single most important rationale and justification for the invasion. It was because of the WMD the Bush administration the Bush administration acted, even if it was on faulty and manipulated evidence.

Bullshit?

The first, and last, rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change. The very same doctrine put in place by Bill Clinton.

This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him one final opportunity to disarm or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.

Now you may claim that I am rewriting history but you have yet to show where and how. What part of the above is wrong?

There has never been any proof of manipulated evidence. Faulty, maybe, but considering the amount of intelligence we are gaining from Saddam's own intelligence archives, history might come to a different conclusion about the WMDs.

Iraqs'?

Are you actually saying Iraq was full compliance with the UN resolutions? That they provided proof of coompliance? Your mindset is what allowed North Korea to fool the Clinton administration. Gee. Why would a tyrant lie to us?

Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

As for the talk of WMDs: the talk was because the whole world believed Saddam had them. No lying involved, just bad intelligence on behalf of nearly every intelligence agency in the world. Not to mention that WMDs were a very small part of the reason for liberating Iraq. Yes, "liberating".

WMDs and ties to al-Qaeda were the stated reasons for the invasion.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11 world.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html

Now, it's debatable that he may have intended to develop WMDs, at the time of the invasion, he had none.

After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

And Secretary of State Powell admitted that the administration had no proof of any ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda

I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?ex=1388984400&en=6bb5457574b8ec1d&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

So the main reason for the invasion of Iraq may have eventually become liberation, it was not mentioned at the beginning of the invasion as one of the main reasons.

It is clear that no one here has the ability to debate me on this issue considering the weakness of arguments, such as they are, to be found.

Peace out y'all I am off to enjoy my evening.

SNIP.

The Authorization for the Use of Force bill, passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses, is the legal basis for the Iraq war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield.

The Authorization bill begins with 23 whereas clauses justifying the war. Contrary to idiotic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

Powell gave a speech on WMDs but the official Authorization bill spells it out pretty clearly. If you wish to hear WMDs fine. But that is not the reality. Look at the Clinton and Gore “Iraqi Liberation Act” they sent to Congress; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove Saddam and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

Me rewriting history? Hardly. The facts support me.

Not that it matters that I am so right. I am quite happy with the knowledge that my country, with its military, once again has given millions of people the hope that they can determine the paths of their own lives.

I am quite sure you know what you think. You, however, are unaware of the facts that should be influencing that thought process. Sure, you could try to contradict me but you would lack the factual basis to do so.

You are not disconnected from your thought process. You are disconnected from reality.
Well please, post these facts here so I can stop believing that being a "sovereign nation" gives you the right to oppress the citizens of that nation. While you're at it, I'd also like to see the facts that will cause me to believe that all people want to be free, even little brown Muslim ones.

I fully expect your post to rock my perceptions of reality to their very foundations. I mean, I didn't even know that I believed and did not believe the above, respectively, so no doubt the facts that will retroactively change my opinions will be very fucking impressive.
It is clear that no one here has the ability to debate me on this issue considering the weakness of arguments, such as they are, to be found.

Peace out y'all I am off to enjoy my evening.

Oh dear, now it seems I'm going to have to go back to hating Iraqis. Which is weird, because I don't remember when I did hate them before. But since you apparently have facts that I don't, you must be right.

This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw.

No more so than the U.S. government, which frequently and blatantly violates both domestic and international law more times than anyone could care to count.

Are you actually saying Iraq was full compliance with the UN resolutions? That they provided proof of coompliance? Your mindset is what allowed North Korea to fool the Clinton administration. Gee. Why would a tyrant lie to us?

You asked for one intelligence agency that loudly proclaimed that Iraq didn't have WMDs before the war, I answered.

It's not my fault you suck at framing questions.

But since you apparently have facts that I don't, you must be right.

Maybe he's a mind-reader, who can see into parts of your mind that you can't? I wonder what he thinks is in my mind.

It is clear that no one here has the ability to debate me on this issue considering the weakness of arguments, such as they are, to be found.

Peace out y'all I am off to enjoy my evening.

Man, I the old days trolls would hang around for hours entertaining me by defending preposterous view points. Now they scarper far too quickly.

Where is MeansToAnEnd when you need him?

SNIP

We're not talking about the legal justification for the invasion, so I'd kindly ask you to stop obscuring the true subject of the discussion. We're discussing motivation, and if you have difficulty distinguishing between the two, I recommend you invest in a dictionary as quickly as possible.

See, I can be smug and superior and wholly confident in my own correctness despite evidence to the contrary. Heck, all it took was deleting your post and replacing it with SNIP to entirely dismiss everything you said, just like you did with me. It's fun being arrogant.

Name them. Point out one intelligence agency that loudly proclaimed Saddam's lack of weapon programs and material BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. Not even Blix reported as much. Put up or shut up.
Gladly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Between_inspections:_1998-2002).

US and UK intelligence agencies believed (wrongly) there were WMDs, mainly because they shared faulty intelligence, but not "nearly every intelligence agency in the world", as you so claimed. Moreover, several agencies directly dealing with any alleged Iraqi WMD programs, such as the UN's weapon inspectors, had found no evidence of any such program.

Because there wasn't any.

Incidentally, are your claims subject to 'put up or shut up' also?

UN Security Council resolution 1441 was a resolution by the UN Security Council
Perhaps you haven't noticed, that second letter in the first and eleventh words above is an 'N', not an 'S'. Justifying an invasion that was expressly against the wishes of the UN by appealing to UN resolutions is nothing short of pathetic.

No, the world population did not give us the responsibility to be the world's policeman but the UN did give us the right to enter Iraq.
No, they distinctly did not.

A breach of a UN security resolution does not give any nation free reign to invade another nation. Unless you're going to claim coalition troops were wearing blue berets in 2003?

And considering the 26 partners we entered into Iraq with, I would hardly say that the world was against us.
Seeing as that's a small minority of world nations, I would say the world was, in the majority, against the invasion and occupation.

EDIT: Or at least so unsupportive as not to supply troops or equipment. Furthermore, I fail to see how the support of 26 administrations counts as 'the world'. Here in the UK, I think it's fair to say that around half of the population was in some way against the invasion; I don't see how that equates to the UK being 'for' the war...

Oh, this is about blaming America now? And hating it?

How funny.

Only it's not funny at all, and I TIRE OF THIS SHIT!

You invaded a country! Destroyed its infrastructure and killed an untold number of people, in both sides, screwing yourself up in the process. BOTH America and Iraq would be better off if you hadn't invaded and raped a country, and all for a big pile of NOTHING! And you then have the gall to come here and accuse US, the people that alerted you against this, for your own good, of hating America? Have you no shame? How DARE you? Look at you, an internet troll with no life of his own, trying to equate criticism with hatred, just like they do in the dictatorships you CLAIM to be against! And only "claim" it is, because, deep down, I think, nay, I KNOW you would like America to be a big old police state, where "haters", make that "critics", are taken to concentration camps. All the while you think America should be like this, which would get your forefathers rolling in their graves!

And YOU come here and try to admonish US? Us, your betters? Us, the people that are actually trying to improve America and the world, all the while you openly spew bullshit about criticism equalling hatred?

You? Look at yourself, and be ashamed! Now get off our lawn and go sit in the corner! After that, feel free to look up what "democracy" actually means. If I never have to deal with you spouting this utter BULLSHIT about criticism equalling hatred again, it'll be too soon!

You should be downright ashamed of yourself!

And this goes to all of you here who made such claims or think so as well. That I picked two-post-wonder here as my victim does not exonerate anyone that thinks like him.


:eek2::eek::eek2:

Umm... would you like a side of fries with your fried newbie? :tongue:

I dare say, anyone who compares America to Nazi Germany in such a case has no historical knowledge, nor any military knowledge or tact.

I dare say that the two are comparable, given that they brought utter ruin to the countries they conquered.


Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that it can take at minimum, four years, for an officer to be fully trained, even longer for the high-ranking officer. Some jobs can take as long as two years to train for, some even four. While we may start pulling back more very soon, we can't do an instant pullback.

So explain to me the brilliance that was dismissing the Iraqi Republican guard at the onset of the occupation, a standing army with an already trained officer corps, why don't you hmm?

Man, I the old days trolls would hang around for hours entertaining me by defending preposterous view points. Now they scarper far too quickly.

Where is MeansToAnEnd when you need him?

Trolls usually hold a controversial position but don't really believe them. How do you know this one isn't some nincompoop with a 1 day memory who makes up for it with jingoism and a cup of stupid? It's not like there's a shortage of that kind of people in the world. One of them is bound to have tripped over NSG at some point.

Trolls usually hold a controversial position but don't really believe them. How do you know this one isn't some nincompoop with a 1 day memory who makes up for it with jingoism and a cup of stupid? It's not like there's a shortage of that kind of people in the world. One of them is bound to have tripped over NSG at some point.

I'm just an optimist and have a hard time accepting there really are people that dumb.....despite the constant evidence to the contrary provided by this board.

Trolls usually hold a controversial position but don't really believe them. How do you know this one isn't some nincompoop with a 1 day memory who makes up for it with jingoism and a cup of stupid? It's not like there's a shortage of that kind of people in the world. One of them is bound to have tripped over NSG at some point.

What's great is that he's claiming to be a libertarian in another thread.

What's great is that he's claiming to be a libertarian in another thread.
One of 'em libertarians who don't mind state intervention in other countries?

:eek2::eek::eek2:

Umm... would you like a side of fries with your fried newbie? :tongue:

Yes, I would.

Yes, I would.

Your total is $2.52... please pull up to the 1st window.

For all those who pointed out comparisons with the Nazis:

In late 1930s and 1940s nobody was worried about the demand of oil exceeding its supply. They kill Iraqis so you won't starve because of the scarcity of oil in the near future. The threat of Peak Oil to the survival of the entire industrial civilization and of billions of lives is no joke.

And if they didn't, they would kill each other anyway because of a culture which is far beyond repair. It will benefit your country, and in the end crap will hit the fan because of oil and lots of people are going to die anyway. That war bought US 3 or 5 years of additional time before the long emergency hits it.

There'll be more wars for oil. That always was the point. Wars are made for selfish interests of nations. Sometimes camouflaged under "greater causes", others not. There are no good guys or bad guys. If Iraq and US switched sides regarding military power, Iraq would be invading US. That's how it works, that's how it always worked.

Local problems come first than the problems of thousands of kilometer/miles away. There is no idealism, and if they made a new star to add to their flag, it's because they can, and if any other country was in their place, would likely do the same.

The adage "Power corrupts..." also applies to foreign relations. Realpolitik is how everything happens. And if taking a slice of Middle East was the only way to prevent my life and the life of those in my nation from going to hell in the near future due to a critical recession, or to buy enough time for viable biofuels to come, I would not go against it.

In late 1930s and 1940s nobody was worried about the demand of oil exceeding its supply. They kill Iraqis so you won't starve because of the scarcity of oil in the near future. The threat of Peak Oil to the survival of the entire industrial civilization and of billions of lives is no joke.

I need money in order to survive for a couple more years. Excuse me while I kill you and steal all your possessions. My survival is more important than yours.

I need money in order to survive for a couple more years. Excuse me while I kill you and steal all your possessions. My survival is more important than yours.

I'm prepared to meet you for this party, don't forget to BYOB.

I'm prepared to meet you for this party, don't forget to BYOB.

Bring your own bombs? Good.

For all those who pointed out comparisons with the Nazis:

In late 1930s and 1940s nobody was worried about the demand of oil exceeding its supply.

So?

They kill Iraqis so you won't starve

Bull fucking shit. Don't give me that pathetic excuse. Even if it was true, killing Iraqis doesn't exactly negate peak oil. And it's not true.


And if they didn't, they would kill each other anyway because of a culture which is far beyond repair.

That's like saying the Jews would have died anyway one way or the other, so the Holocaust wasn't so bad after all.

It will benefit your country

Oh yeah, bankruptcy, diminished foreign affairs credibility and pointless carnage. What a benefit. Silly of me for not seeing it until you and your bald assertions came along.

, and in the end crap will hit the fan because of oil and lots of people are going to die anyway. That war bought US 3 or 5 years of additional time before the long emergency hits it.

3 or 5 years? And you base this estimate on which part of your ass, exactly?

There are no good guys or bad guys.

If you really can't see there are 'bad guys,' it's no wonder you're making such a half-assed and irrational argument.

If Iraq and US switched sides regarding military power, Iraq would be invading US.

Your inane hypothetical is not an argument in favor.


Local problems come first than the problems of thousands of kilometer/miles away. There is no idealism, and if they made a new star to add to their flag, it's because they can, and if any other country was in their place, would likely do the same.

More silly justifications that don't hold a shred of truth. Because the US does something, 'any other country' in its place would? I suppose you think the same goes for the Nazis?

And if taking a slice of Middle East was the only way to prevent my life and the life of those in my nation from going to hell in the near future

It wasn't.

due to a critical recession, or to buy enough time for viable biofuels to come, I would not go against it.

Seems to me like you wouldn't go against it no matter what, then. Amoral apathy. It's what enabled movements like the Nazis in the first place.

"You break it, you buy it" seems to be one of those pithy phrases people can choose to misinterpret depending on their whim.

Surely you would agree that it is the responsibility of an aggressor to repair the damage done by its aggression?

Staying and occupying the country is not 'repairing the damage done.' It is continuing to do the exact same thing. A better analogy would be rape. We raped Iraq, and currently our collective penis is still criminally lodged in Iraq's vagina. Now we have people who say that the only way to make it better is to keep on raping them and that, in fact, it would be immoral beyond imagining to stop.

So yes, Nazi Germany had an obligation to repair

Ah, I suppose occupation and mass murdering the local population also counts as "repair" work.

- an obligation that may have necessitated some degree of limited and temporary occupation before withdrawal. However, the occupation that ACTUALLY occurred in WW2 was reprehensible and horrific, and for the purposes of forced labour and extermination.

Similarly, the occupation that ACTUALLY is occuring is not "fixing" anything.

Your total is $2.52... please pull up to the 1st window.

Supersize it.

Trostia, unless you are an Amish or don't live in US...

Whenever you get into a car ride when you could walk on foot

Whenever you hang out with any car

You are enjoying the fruits of a prosperity built from pure Social Darwinism at a global level. And if Iraq began to sell oil in Euros, everything would become more expensive because the dollar would suffer a quite increased devaluing.

No nation can maintain a "superpower" status if it cares about ethics. Because the act of dominating and oppressing other weaker nations is the only fact that motivates governments to achieve such goal, taking a ride of the economic growth driven by the greed and ambition of individuals who seek to reach the top of the ladder, a ladder made of the heads of all those in their path.

The point of my previous post was not a justification of the invasion of Iraq. Au contraire, it was a rhetorical pointer about human nature itself along history and about the fact the power also corrupts the abstract concept of nation(or more practically, its government on foreign relations), and about the sheer hypocrisy that permeates politics. Forget "Communist Manifesto", "The Wealth of Nations" and alike. Reality runs like "The Prince", and whether it will be stupid or not, people are profiting from it, people who funded presidential campaigns and expected something in exchange in the faux western democracy that tends to be a de facto plutocracy.

Yet all other alternatives end in failure and equal dichotomy between theory and practice, because that's how humanity works. The strong beat the weak. And beneath all facades of diplomatic and peaceful talk, the old rule still is on vogue.

As a general pointer, if you have a gas guzzling SUV and is against wars for oil, maybe you should know that the increasing demand for something, when not accompanied by an equal increase of supply, increases its strategic importance, and thus the motivation to wage wars because of it. And no UN built in lands donated by Rockefeller or single-cause activists of organizations with corporate interests behind them raising placards will stop it.

Trostia, unless you are an Amish or don't live in US...

Whenever you get into a car ride when you could walk on foot

Whenever you hang out with any car

You are enjoying the fruits of a prosperity built from pure Social Darwinism at a global level.

You sure do enjoy these cliched, supposedly pithy little statements that have nothing to do with anything I say, don't you?

And if Iraq began to sell oil in Euros, everything would become more expensive because the dollar would suffer a quite increased devaluing.

Big deal. Either read and respond to what I say, or don't pretend you're actually responding to me at all.

The point of my previous post was not a justification of the invasion of Iraq. Au contraire, it was a rhetorical pointer about human nature

In other words you weren't contradicting, rebutting or arguing, but instead blurting out irrelevant and condescending Facts Of Life as you see them. Kay then.

Trostia, unless you are an Amish or don't live in US...

Whenever you get into a car ride when you could walk on foot

Whenever you hang out with any car

You are enjoying the fruits of a prosperity built from pure Social Darwinism at a global level. And if Iraq began to sell oil in Euros, everything would become more expensive because the dollar would suffer a quite increased devaluing.

No nation can maintain a "superpower" status if it cares about ethics. Because the act of dominating and oppressing other weaker nations is the only fact that motivates governments to achieve such goal, taking a ride of the economic growth driven by the greed and ambition of individuals who seek to reach the top of the ladder, a ladder made of the heads of all those in their path.

The point of my previous post was not a justification of the invasion of Iraq. Au contraire, it was a rhetorical pointer about human nature itself along history and about the fact the power also corrupts the abstract concept of nation(or more practically, its government on foreign relations), and about the sheer hypocrisy that permeates politics. Forget "Communist Manifesto", "The Wealth of Nations" and alike. Reality runs like "The Prince", and whether it will be stupid or not, people are profiting from it, people who funded presidential campaigns and expected something in exchange in the faux western democracy that tends to be a de facto plutocracy.

Yet all other alternatives end in failure and equal dichotomy between theory and practice, because that's how humanity works. The strong beat the weak. And beneath all facades of diplomatic and peaceful talk, the old rule still is on vogue.

As a general pointer, if you have a gas guzzling SUV and is against wars for oil, maybe you should know that the increasing demand for something, when not accompanied by an equal increase of supply, increases its strategic importance, and thus the motivation to wage wars because of it. And no UN built in lands donated by Rockefeller or single-cause activists of organizations with corporate interests behind them raising placards will stop it.

There’s a hedgehog all curled up, having found its latest reason for everything.

It is funny how many people think being an amateur apologist for failed empire makes them appear smarter then they really are.

As for the military adventure in Mesopotamia, the violence is down to 2005 levels, costs have exceeded a trillion dollars of barrowed money, there have been thousands of American casualties (many wounded veterans who will cost even more money), and the Iraqi government is on good terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran. If there is eventually a result that can be called a victory it will be universally recognized as a Pyrrhic one.

There’s a porcupine all curled up, having found its latest reason for everything.

It is funny how many people think being an amateur apologist for failed empire makes them appear smarter then they really are.

As for the military adventure in Mesopotamia, the violence is down to 2005 levels, costs have exceeded a trillion dollars of barrowed money, there have been thousands of American casualties (many wounded veterans who will cost even more money), and the Iraqi government is on good terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran. If there is eventually a result that can be called a victory it will be universally recognized as a Pyrrhic one.

It's only a victory if you happen to be LeeRoy Jenkins.

Staying and occupying the country is not 'repairing the damage done.' It is continuing to do the exact same thing. A better analogy would be rape. We raped Iraq, and currently our collective penis is still criminally lodged in Iraq's vagina. Now we have people who say that the only way to make it better is to keep on raping them and that, in fact, it would be immoral beyond imagining to stop.



Ah, I suppose occupation and mass murdering the local population also counts as "repair" work.



Similarly, the occupation that ACTUALLY is occuring is not "fixing" anything.

I don't want to debate colourful analogies, because we just get more divorced from reality by doing so. I can just choose a different analogy that fits my argument, yay me.


You didn't respond to any of the points in my post, which rested on the problems of "who else can" and "what kind of shit would happen if the US just left without fixing Iraq". What other practical alternative is there? You say staying is not repairing, but how do you repair without people on the ground?

As I also said, fucking up does not absolve the US from responsibility. Otherwise in your analogy, this means the rapist can go around raping whoever they want, because they are to stupid to know when to stop. Sound fair?

As I also said, fucking up does not absolve the US from responsibility. Otherwise in your analogy, this means the rapist can go around raping whoever they want, because they are to stupid to know when to stop. Sound fair?

If the rapist happens to have more power at his disposal than the entire police force, unfortunately, it means nobody can stop him.

Not using written text you didn't.

let me spell it out then, there is a need for a foreign military force in Iraq because of various internal factors that I outlined before, whereas in Poland there was no such need after the invasion, as the polish people would have just picked up the battered pieces of their country and continue on with their lives. It would however, have been good if Germany gave them soem sort of reparations to make up for the damage done, as opposed to just leaving and saying to hell with it.



It was morally reprehensible to invade in the first place. To stay is only to compound, reinforce and try to justify that immorality. You people are making like it's wrong to invade a country - particularly for the BS reasons used in Iraq - but it's somehow even worse to withdraw. A pretty convenient opinion that seems to do nothing but support might-makes-right.

not really, if someone admits the invasion was wrong in the first place, thats anything but might makes right.

I mean that's the actual argument, isn't it? Iraq has "problems" and the only way to make them "right" is by keeping the armed might of the US firmly in the country? Might makes right, literally. Oh well as long as GW Bush feels happy and we adhere to US Business Principles.

now you're just confusing the term might makes right. In this case might is a tool, not a reason for why our actions are ok. The justification is that leaving would cause possibily irreparable damage to the country.

Shit, I'm a capitalist and even I am absolutely disgusted with this comparison of "You break it, you buy it." We're not SHOPPING. What we did was more like break IN to the store. It's not, "You break in, you stay there for years!"

I think you're missing the point of the analogy which was that if you break something (say a country) you should try to fix it.

I think you're missing the point of the analogy which was that if you break something (say a country) you should try to fix it.

By rebuilding it in something to your tastes? Sorry, but if you tore up the Mona Lisa and restored it to some neo-cubist version, you'll still go to jail for I have no idea how many years, presuming the curators didn't tear you to pieces.

-snip-

Ignoring your mainly emotive, non objective, response (mass murder? please), why do you have to be so unbelievably narrow. You're acting as if there is only two possibilities, either the US stay and brutally murder innocents and fuck with the economy, or they have to completely withdraw from Iraq and not offer any help. Why do you insist on not allowing anything in between? In fact, you have not made anything close to resembling an argument as to why NATO should leave, only why the US should stop with the 'brutality' that they are allegedly doing. Yet you've set up a rather bizarre scenario where the only way for this brutality to end is for the US to run away, rather than for them to just stop those specific nasty things they are doing.

Ignoring your mainly emotive, non objective, response (mass murder? please), why do you have to be so unbelievably narrow. You're acting as if there is only two possibilities, either the US stay and brutally murder innocents and fuck with the economy, or they have to completely withdraw from Iraq and not offer any help.

Given that the US has increased Blackwater presence in Iraq, despite the Iraqi government telling them to get out after that shooting incident which they refused to punish the perpetrators for, despite the UCMJ actually putting them on trial, and that it has forced a number of laws upon Iraq that effectively puts the majority of its oil wealth in US corporate hands, why should anyone believe that the US would actually try to help Iraq recover?

It has had the opportunity to do so for the last 4 years. And so far, it has only shown interest in lining its pockets.

Perhaps we should ask rapists nicely not to rape people too, rather than have them arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail. Or maybe murderers to bring back the dead.

Unless you have a magic ray gun that would make the special interest groups and presidency suffer head asplodey syndrome, why should we believe that the US will behave any differently than a criminal who doesn't care about witnesses?

Given that the US has increased Blackwater presence in Iraq, despite the Iraqi government telling them to get out after that shooting incident which they refused to punish the perpetrators for, despite the UCMJ actually putting them on trial, and that it has forced a number of laws upon Iraq that effectively puts the majority of its oil wealth in US corporate hands, why should anyone believe that the US would actually try to help Iraq recover?


Black Water make a very sizeable portion of the forces in Iraq, perhaps they are needed since without them the forces in Iraq would be severely weakened? But of course, this has nothing to do with whether NATO forces should leave. Don't like blackwater? Then don't support the US's decision to keep them there, that's all there is to it.


It has had the opportunity to do so for the last 4 years. And so far, it has only shown interest in lining its pockets.


Also irrelevant, what the US ARE doing has nothing to do with what they SHOULD be doing. As I have tried to explain a billion trillion times.


Unless you have a magic ray gun that would make the special interest groups and presidency suffer head asplodey syndrome, why should we believe that the US will behave any differently than a criminal who doesn't care about witnesses?

Why is that relevant? Should NATO forces stay and help to rebuild Iraq? Yes. Are the ways the NATO forces attempting to help beneficial? Debatable, but also irrelevant.

Also irrelevant, what the US ARE doing has nothing to do with what they SHOULD be doing. As I have tried to explain a billion trillion times.


Arguments of "Should" should also have some bearing in reality no? Otherwise, the argument spirals into what RPer's call "godmodding", except this is the nation state version of it.

Arguments of "Should" should also have some bearing in reality no? Otherwise, the argument spirals into what RPer's call "godmodding", except this is the nation state version of it.

The US, in reality, could easily send blackwater home, and easily let the Iraqi government deal with their oil themselves. Running away is not a requirement to ensure this end. It is no more unrealistic to say that the US forces will leave then it is to stay that they will stop doing these specific things. Unless of course, you want to turn this into an Obama vs McCain pissing match. But then I would just be saying that they are both wrong.

The US, in reality, could easily send blackwater home, and easily let the Iraqi government deal with their oil themselves. Running away is not a requirement to ensure this end. It is no more unrealistic to say that the US forces will leave then it is to stay that they will stop doing these specific things. Unless of course, you want to turn this into an Obama vs McCain pissing match. But then I would just be saying that they are both wrong.

Yes, yes, yes. And if the nations of the world got off their collective duff, hunger and poverty could become a thing of the past, the average person would have first world educational standards, we could have Martian colonies in a decade, oil dependencies would become marginalized with replacement technologies, genetic research would jump by leaps and bounds, and we'd have a real ISS deserving of the name and not a bunch of smallish modules put together that don't really work all the time, and crazy fundamentalists wouldn't be trying to insert their dogma into everyone's life.

It's not going to happen though. That's what I mean by a basis in reality.

George W Bush could go on national address in a pink tutu while dancing Swan Lake along with dance partners Mugabe, Putin, Blair, Hu Jintao, Kim Jung, Sarkozy and Howard while Fred Phelp's family plays the orchestra in bright pink suits. It could happen. In bizzaro world, but not in this one.

George W Bush could go on national address in a pink tutu while dancing Swan Lake along with dance partners Mugabe, Putin, Blair, Hu Jintao, Kim Jung, Sarkozy and Howard while Fred Phelp's family plays the orchestra in bright pink suits. It could happen. In bizzaro world, but not in this one.

Same with US forces leaving under the Republicans. Realistically, it's about whether you should support Obama's plan for withdrawal, or McCain's plan for continued presence, since those are practically the only two choices available. If that's the case, then arguing about whether US forces should leave or not is irrelevant, you should be arguing about who's plan has more merits, Obama's or McCain's.

They kill Iraqis so you won't starve because of the scarcity of oil in the near future.
Funnily enough, I have things set up so that I don't need oil to produce food.

[:soap:]

And YOU come here and try to admonish US? Us, your betters? Us, the people that are actually trying to improve America and the world, all the while you openly spew bullshit about criticism equalling hatred?

[/:soap:]

Oh, yeah, I forgot, we are not fit to rule our own goddamned country.

How dare we exercise our own sovereignty over our own affairs, how dare we take a stand against tyranny where it grows.

Oh, I forgot, everything would be better if we just listened to Daddy Europe, who always knows best, including when it heads down to Africa and commits some of the worst acts of genocide that no one knows about, or when its grand stability fails and they perform the greatest acts of genocide that everyone does know about.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Funnily enough, I have things set up so that I don't need oil to produce food.

Impossible. Oil was used in the manufacture of your gun and your ammunition if your a hunter. Oil is used to make the shirt your wearing to allow you to hunt or farm at all. Oil was used to heat/cool and house you which is nesesary if your a hunter or a farmer. Oil is used to create the tools you use for farming. Oil is used for the fertilizer for your crops, and to make the rope you use to string up that deer. Or the knife you use to butcher that cow. Oil is used to maintain your tools. Oil is used for transportation and manufacture to facilitate all of the above.

how dare we take a stand against tyranny where it grows.
Can't disagree with that to be honest.

including when it heads down to Africa and commits some of the worst acts of genocide that no one knows about,

Wha....?



Excuse me while I vomit.
By all means but, please, do re-join the party.

Wha....?


Go look up stories on the European colonization of Africa, stories that most people overlook.

There'll be more wars for oil.

Bumper sticker I saw a few days back:

THE GAS WARS
ARE OVER!

THE GAS WON

Go look up stories on the European colonization of Africa, stories that most people overlook.

Well, I'd rather you back up your assertions.

But well done on comparing the actions of the United States of the 21st century, with the actions of European Empires of the 19th century.

What next? Saying "we r gr8 coz the Mongols- thay r teh suXX"

Oh, I forgot, everything would be better if we just listened to Daddy Europe,

Heikoku is from Brazil not "daddy europe"

But well done on comparing the actions of the United States of the 21st century, with the actions of European Empires of the 19th century.

Well, some claim that America is entering into a imperialistic stage in its life, so the comparison would be accurate.

Also, how are the Europeans of the 19th century any less responsible for their actions than the Americans of the 21st century?

Are people of that era any less human? Do they automatically have less of a conscience?

Are Africans any less worthy of human rights than Iraqis?

Well, some claim that America is entering into a imperialistic stage in its life, so the comparison would be accurate.
So I'm not far wrong when I said What next? Saying "we r gr8 coz the Mongols- thay r teh suXX"

Ok.

Yes Crimean Republic. The United States is great.

There. All's well in the world.

Also, how are the Europeans of the 19th century any less responsible for their actions than the Americans of the 21st century?
Well, them being dead for over 150 years does something to holding them accountable....

Are people of that era any less human? Do they automatically have less of a conscience?

Are Africans any less worthy of human rights than Iraqis?

Yeh.... that's what I said.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, we are not fit to rule our own goddamned country.

How dare we exercise our own sovereignty over our own affairs, how dare we take a stand against tyranny where it grows.

Oh, I forgot, everything would be better if we just listened to Daddy Europe, who always knows best, including when it heads down to Africa and commits some of the worst acts of genocide that no one knows about, or when its grand stability fails and they perform the greatest acts of genocide that everyone does know about.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Well-spoken: You rule YOUR OWN goddamned country, NOT OTHERS. You exercise sovereignty over YOUR OWN affairs, not the affairs of other countries. Not Iraq.

And that everything would be better if you listened to Europe and hadn't started a war that screwed up both your peoples, all the while calling people who alerted you against it, including American people, "US-haters", well, it WOULD.

And if you vomited in YOUR OWN house, not in OTHER PEOPLE'S houses, we wouldn't be having this argument, so, feel free to vomit in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!

Yeah, right, like that's going to happen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)...
Whyever not?
There are a few reasons why violent attacks in Iraq have become fewer (although I don't think the violence will end, whether we go or stay, not until another strongman emerges who will probably be just as bad as Saddam in his own way), quite independent of the "surge".
The surge has been extremely important in improving security in Iraq, to be honest.
One reason is that the violence has largely succeeded: no Christians are being killed in Iraq anymore, because there are no Christians left in Iraq; there are no ethnic conflicts in mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad anymore, because there are no mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad.
We'll have a see as to whether that's actually true or not when the Iraqis' next census comes out in 2009, won't we?
More optimistically, though, some violent groups have lost strength because the Iraqis themselves have gotten tired of them; Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia in the Sunnite regions, and Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in the Shi'ite regions, have both faced serious backlash.
Also because the Iraqi army is increasingly good (although it's not that special at the moment by any means).

Well, some claim that America is entering into a imperialistic stage in its life, so the comparison would be accurate.

Also, how are the Europeans of the 19th century any less responsible for their actions than the Americans of the 21st century?

Are people of that era any less human? Do they automatically have less of a conscience?

Are Africans any less worthy of human rights than Iraqis?

Europe has repeatedly apologized and come to terms with its own history.

Feel free to do the same.

Heikoku is from Brazil not "daddy europe"

Not that it matters to him. Anyone that was against this bloodshed is from the European Hivemind as far as he's concerned.

Also, congrats on your wedding.

Not that it matters to him. Anyone that was against this bloodshed is from the European Hivemind as far as he's concerned.

Also, congrats on your wedding.

Thanks thanks. This saturday :)

I remember quite clearly. NATO intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, the UN, Jordanian intelligence, French intelligence, etc. all said that Saddam was hiding weapons and weapons programs from inspectors.

Don't you remember?

I remember Blair talking about that kind of thing at a meeting with Putin, then Vlad stepping up and saying he had knowledge of the weapons Blair was referring to. Blairs face was most amusing to behold......

I
And Iraq is not a client state so that is one more conspiracy out the window.

Its government is backed and dependent on the US. The economic policy of the state was determined by a unelected US administration before any elections were held. Soldiers of the US and its contractors are immune to Iraqi law and are not answerable to the Iraqi parliament. So far its barking, sniffing and crapping much like a dog with "client" on its name tag.


Because America gave Saddam a chance to come clean. Saddam didn't.

Actually he rather famously did. When the Weapons inspectors asked for more time to confirm this, off the US went to war. That resolution didn't allow for war either.


This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw.

You're confusing Iraq with Israel, who've been at it far far longer. And they do have WMD. Really real ones.


There has never been any proof of manipulated evidence. .

Does "forged" count as manipulating? I reckon it does meself....

The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery



The Authorization for the Use of Force bill, passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses, is the legal basis for the Iraq war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. .


...by which logic Saddams invasion of Kuwait was legal, because the Iraqi parliament approved it.

You didn't respond to any of the points in my post, which rested on the problems of "who else can" and "what kind of shit would happen if the US just left without fixing Iraq". What other practical alternative is there? You say staying is not repairing, but how do you repair without people on the ground?

How exactly do you "repair" a problem - invasion - by occupation? That's a nonsensical argument and I don't care how many of you people repeat it.

"Who else can." Well that's a toughie, because the United States is definitely the only country in the better financial position to help Iraq. Oh wait it isn't, and this is yet another stupid argument.

As I also said, fucking up does not absolve the US from responsibility.

A 'responsibility'.... to continue the invasion, continue the war, continue fighting, and do exactly what the 'fucking up' was in the first place. Yeah, how responsible.

Otherwise in your analogy, this means the rapist can go around raping whoever they want, because they are to stupid to know when to stop. Sound fair?

That doesn't follow at all. No, you're arguing that a rapist is morally obliged to continue raping. That it is in fact his "responsibility" to do so.

let me spell it out then, there is a need for a foreign military force in Iraq because of various internal factors that I outlined before, whereas in Poland there was no such need after the invasion, as the polish people would have just picked up the battered pieces of their country and continue on with their lives. It would however, have been good if Germany gave them soem sort of reparations to make up for the damage done, as opposed to just leaving and saying to hell with it.


Fine. Let's leave, and pay reparations. I'm fine with that, I don't oppose that. But clearly if it's wrong to invade a country (as it is in both these examples), the worst, absolute worst thing to do is to STAY in the country and continue occupying it by force. At least from a moral perspective.

not really, if someone admits the invasion was wrong in the first place, thats anything but might makes right.

If someone argues that the invasion was wrong but the occupation is right, they ARE arguing that might makes right whether they like to acknowledge that or not.

More thorough response later. Pizza is beeping!

Gladly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Between_inspections:_1998-2002).

US and UK intelligence agencies believed (wrongly) there were WMDs, mainly because they shared faulty intelligence, but not "nearly every intelligence agency in the world", as you so claimed. Moreover, several agencies directly dealing with any alleged Iraqi WMD programs, such as the UN's weapon inspectors, had found no evidence of any such program.

Because there wasn't any.

Incidentally, are your claims subject to 'put up or shut up' also?

Absolutely. But you have to do better than this. I had a good laugh over this one. Scott Ritter? This just shows you the stupidity of using Wikipedia as a valid source.

For those who remember history as it actually occurred: In 1997, before Ritter was arrested for soliciting sex from a police officer posing as a teenager, Saddam Hussein indeed had been furtively building a nuclear arsenal, according to Ritter. But in 2002, a year after Ritter acquired a dirty little secret of his own, Hussein suddenly became beyond suspicion. This didn't surface because he is an opposing voice. He is an opposing force because he knew this might surface. The day his 2001 arrest hit the national press Ritter was supposed to be on a plane to Baghdad to offer alternatives to military action.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, that second letter in the first and eleventh words above is an 'N', not an 'S'. Justifying an invasion that was expressly against the wishes of the UN by appealing to UN resolutions is nothing short of pathetic.

Resolution 1441 gave us the ability to enter Iraq. That is why no one can claim the Iraq War was illegal. That may be your opinion but the Resolution backs up US actions.

No, they distinctly did not.

A breach of a UN security resolution does not give any nation free reign to invade another nation. Unless you're going to claim coalition troops were wearing blue berets in 2003?

The UN approved, the US Congress gave its blessing, and several nations of the world provided troops. If you want a cowboy war, check out Bosnia.

Seeing as that's a small minority of world nations, I would say the world was, in the majority, against the invasion and occupation.

Luckily we have the UN around to dictate what the world wants. Resolution 1441 stated Saddam had to comply with inspects or else. He gave the UN inspectors the run around so a coalition of nations gave him the "or else".

EDIT: Or at least so unsupportive as not to supply troops or equipment. Furthermore, I fail to see how the support of 26 administrations counts as 'the world'. Here in the UK, I think it's fair to say that around half of the population was in some way against the invasion; I don't see how that equates to the UK being 'for' the war...

And thus the "whole world" turns into "the majority" followed by a downgrade to "around half". Needless to say, the UK worked very closely to assist the Coalition in entering Iraq, thus the UK was for the war in a very real and material way. I suppose you believe the proper way to run a government is by the latest poll?

This must be yet another example that H2 would cite of me having my "backside handed to me". Strange it doesn't feel that way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

I hate to "hand your behind to you" but:

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/

This must be that "forged" yellowcake. Wilson was a proven liar about the Nigerian yellowcake. If you believe he was truthful read his testimony in front of Congress.

[QUOTE]...by which logic Saddams invasion of Kuwait was legal, because the Iraqi parliament approved it.

And UN resolution 1441. You can't avoid the fact that the Iraq war was legal because Iraq never abided by the resolutions that ended the first Iraq war. Clinton was quite adamant about Saddam's non-compliance.

And UN resolution 1441. You can't avoid the fact that the Iraq war was legal because Iraq never abided by the resolutions that ended the first Iraq war. Clinton was quite adamant about Saddam's non-compliance.

Please quote where 1441 authorised war.

And UN resolution 1441. You can't avoid the fact that the Iraq war was legal because Iraq never abided by the resolutions that ended the first Iraq war. Clinton was quite adamant about Saddam's non-compliance.

I've already addressed this issue a few times on this forum, so allow me to just repost what I've said on the issue already:


as to the matter of the legality/illegality of the Iraq war, the general timeline goes as such:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.

In 1990 The UN security council originally passed UN Resolution 678, authorizing military intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In 1991 the UN passed UN Resolution 687. Resolution 687 ("the cease fire resolution") declared a conditional ceasefire and end to authorized military force authorized in UN Resolution 678.

The case fire resolution carried several conditions that Hussein and Iraq were required to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such conditions could result in a material breach of the terms of Resolution 687, and a revocation of the cease fire, thus returning us to the state of legal hostilities articulated in Resolution 678

In 2002 the UN issued Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements articulated in Resolution 687. It also stated that this was the last opportunity for Hussein and Iraq to comply with the cease fire conditions, or the cease fire would be considered null and void.

Following Resolution 1441, the US and the UK declared that Iraq was in continued violation of the cease fire terms articulated in Resolution 687 and, as Resolution 1441 stated this was the last opportunity to comply and that Hussein failed to comply, the cease fire was now null and void and Resolution 678 returned to force.

Here's the problem. This was the position of the US and the UK. It was never adopted by the security council as a whole. It remains...highly unclear whether individual nationstates can declare another nationstate in violation of a security council resolution, or if it takes the entire coucnil to do so. Resolution 1441 stated Hussein was on his final change, or the cease fire would be revoked. But it never actually revoked the cease fire. The US and the UK claimed it was revoked, but the council never reached its final position.

Whether the US and the UK could declare Hussein in violation of Resolution 687 and thus the termination of the ceasefire, without the rest of the security council is...highly questionable. Several high ranking current and former members of the UN said they could not, and it required the entire consensus of the council to do so.

Ergo, if that is true, the council never declared the ceasefire null and void, and is therefore still in place. Which would mean the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

The same argument is true for any claim that Resolution 1441 carried inherent triggering of war upon failure, which is to say, some have claimed that the ceasefire was revoked automatically when Iraq failed to comply. But hey, don't take MY word for it. Let's see what US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said about resolution 1441:



[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

Wow, so the ambassador to the UN says that there is no hidden revocation. Interesting.

What about the ambassador to the UN from our ally Great Britain?



We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities

hrm...that's not good

Does ANYBODY have anything to say in our favor?



Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue

......crap

For those who remember history as it actually occurred: In 1997, before Ritter was arrested for soliciting sex from a police officer posing as a teenager, Saddam Hussein indeed had been furtively building a nuclear arsenal, according to Ritter. But in 2002, a year after Ritter acquired a dirty little secret of his own, Hussein suddenly became beyond suspicion. This didn't surface because he is an opposing voice. He is an opposing force because he knew this might surface. The day his 2001 arrest hit the national press Ritter was supposed to be on a plane to Baghdad to offer alternatives to military action.

Wow.



You know the moon landings weren't faked, right?

UN Security Council resolution 1441 was a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
The use of force against Iraq in Gulf War I was authorized by the UNSC in resolution 678. This resolution clearly states that "all necessary means" may be used - i.e. the use of force against the country.

That authorization is revoked by resolution 686, by noting the cease-fire agreement, and stating that for the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraph two and three in the resolution, "the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 remain valid". Should Iraq not comply, use of force may be implemented.

The question now is, who can decide if Iraq is in compliance with the previous resolutions? Can the US unilaterally decide that Iraq is not fulfilling it's obligations and resume military actions? No. The interpretation and implementation of resolutions is the prerogative of the UN, specifically the UNSC.

Now, the US did indeed take the case to the UN, and thus resolution 1441 was passed. This resolution noted:1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);

This, however, did not mean that the US could go to war, as paragraph 2 of the resolution continued:
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council;

With this in mind, we continue to the last paragraphs:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Having given Iraq "a final opportunity", it is again the prerogative of the UNSC to decide whether or not Iraq has complied. A single member state has no opportunity to act alone and before the UNSC has determined the existence of a threat to peace and security under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations - unless of course it is in self defence or another legitimate reason for the use of force. That was, however, not the case in this instance.

It is the job of the Security Council as a whole—and not individual member states—to determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. No member state has the right to act independently and unilaterally on the United Nations' behalf, as the US would be doing under this rationale.

One could also note that the phrase "serious consequences" is a much weaker term then previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII, and could be limited to actions under article 41 and 42 of the Charter - and not article 48. But that is a minor point.

I could also add that even though the US wrongly believed that a second resolution wasn't needed, their statements were not iron-clad to that effect:
As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed.
http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwhira3.html

They did not comply and the opportunity was final. No, the world population did not give us the responsibility to be the world's policeman but the UN did give us the right to enter Iraq.
It did not. The UNSC disagreed with your interpretation, as seen by the statements the different members made during the debate surrounding the campaign for a new resolution spearheaded by the US.

And considering the 26 partners we entered into Iraq with (the UK, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Lithuania, Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Norway and the Netherlands) I would hardly say that the world was against us.
Your list is not trustworthy. Norway was not a partner when entering Iraq, for example. Actually, only six countries besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force.

Bullshit?
Yes.

The first, and last, rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change. The very same doctrine put in place by Bill Clinton.
Prove it, because George W. disagrees with you:

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

"It's very important for our [NATO] nations as well as all free nations to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms," Bush said.

"However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Bush State of the Union speech 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

Etc.

Not to mention all the statements made by his henchmen.


This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him one final opportunity to disarm or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.
Nobody but you believe that.


Now you may claim that I am rewriting history but you have yet to show where and how. What part of the above is wrong?
See above and see my last post. It's clearly written there.

There has never been any proof of manipulated evidence. Faulty, maybe, but considering the amount of intelligence we are gaining from Saddam's own intelligence archives, history might come to a different conclusion about the WMDs.
Sure there was:

The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded
In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.


As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
ElBaradei (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml)

The important informant Curveball was debunked, though that fact was conveniently ignored.
By early 2001, the CIA was getting messages from German intelligence that Curveball was "out of control" and could not be located. Some of Curveball's information was contradicted by other intelligence. His description of a depot for the weapons labs didn't match surveillance images, which showed a wall where Curveball said vehicles were entering and exiting.
Link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm)

(When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements.)

The Authorization for the Use of Force bill, passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses, is the legal basis for the Iraq war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield.

The Authorization bill begins with 23 whereas clauses justifying the war. Contrary to idiotic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
Note how you haven't mentioned anything about human rights violations or regime change yet. WMD however...



Me rewriting history? Hardly. The facts support me.
Not at all. But feel free to try to provide some that does.



I hate to "hand your behind to you" but:

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/

This must be that "forged" yellowcake. Wilson was a proven liar about the Nigerian yellowcake. If you believe he was truthful read his testimony in front of Congress.
Wrong. See above. And see how George Tenet took the blame for the incorrect information ending up in the State of the Union speech.

Also:
One senior western diplomat told the Sunday Herald: 'There were more than 20 anomalies in the Niger documents -- it is staggering any intelligence service could have believed they were genuine for a moment.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=498


And UN resolution 1441. You can't avoid the fact that the Iraq war was legal because Iraq never abided by the resolutions that ended the first Iraq war. Clinton was quite adamant about Saddam's non-compliance.
The war was not legal. It lies to the UNSC to authorize the use of force against any state, except in self defence. The UNSC did not authorize the use of force. Resolution 1441 does not allow the use of force - see above, and see how it set up an inspection regime (the same regime that the US and the "coalition" demanded leave Iraq before they had completed their mission and delivered their final report) and how the UNSC would "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation"; and how it gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply" but did not threaten with nor authorize the use of force but rather "serious consequences" which is something completely different.

The US has violated international law blatantly and grossly, breached the peace, and commited several war crimes.

Mr. de Villepin became familiar to many Americans as the svelte senior French diplomat who successfully led a broad coalition at the United Nations to block attempts by the United States and Britain to secure Security Council authorization for last week's invasion of Iraq. France regards the war in Iraq as illegal.
Article from March 2003 (query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DF1639F93BA15750C0A9659C8B63)

See also what Kofi Annan had to say about the matter. (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm)

Ahh, that feels good. Mmmmm.

Funnily enough, I have things set up so that I don't need oil to produce food.

The you are, indeed, a rarity.

For most people in the West (not just the US, but especially so, there), oil is essential to feeding the masses... whether it be the farming methods, the transportation methods, or just the packaging.

Wow.

You know the moon landings weren't faked, right?

What do you attribute Ritter's complete 180 on? Which Ritter is the right Ritter?

SNIP

Please show me the official UN document that declares the US in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Aren't you even going to address Neo Arts post?

Please show me the official UN document that declares the US in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

For real?

Dude - if this was a metaphor, Gravlen and Neo Art would be gay lovers, and you would be the triple-thick condom they were using - that's how seriously you just got fucked.

Please show me the official UN document that declares the US in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Quick question.

How can there possibly be a resolution declaring the US to be in violation of 1441 when the US has a fucking veto.

Please show me the official UN document that declares the US in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

That would be quite impossible, as Resolution 1441 relates soley to the Iraqi state in relation to the UN. It was an order to Iraq to comply to the resolutions of the UN. An order to Iraq, thus the only party who could violate that order...was Iraq

America couldn't possibly be in violation of Resolution 1441, it's not a party to Resolution 1441. That resolution was between Iraq and the UN. It was an order by the UN to Iraq to comply with the previous UN order. The US could never be in violation of UN Resolution 1441, as UN Resolution 1441 never gave America any duty or order to violate.

Do you have any idea how these things actually work?

Its good that it seems to be working, though me always being the pessimist I don't think it will last.

We should never have gone in there in the first place. Wars NEVER come out with the conclusion you envisage when you first go in, especially if they are as badly planned out as this one, the fact the US NEEDED to send in more troops surely shows this.

The fact remains we have now gone made possibly 3 current generations and 2 or 3 more that have not been born yet anti-western, we have created the perfect breeding ground for anti-western feelings (Al Qaida or otherwise) for generations. We went in with supposedly the intention to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of a heartless tyrant and bring democracy to a failing state, but in invading the country by force we have done the exact opposite, we have given a failing state a weak government that hasn't got either the experience nor the resources to fight not only the insurgents on their own but also hold a fragmenting country together. We have probably done more to push the likelihood of true fair democracy back by a decades than leaving the Iraqis to sort out their own country would have done, (the west seems to forget that it took us thousands of years to perfect and fully understand and adopt democratic ideals, they cannot be forced on a country that still has a high level of corruption and tribalism, sadly it just doesn't work, as a result you get weak corrupt governments and an even bigger mess than you started out with). WHY didn't people just think that the Iraqis (whose ancestors had one of the most powerful, successful and MODERN empires that has given us things such as land irrigation, and the alphabet) could actually work out their troubles by themselves, it might have taken them a lot longer than going in and invading but it would have been much more long lasting when it did come, and we could have waited until they asked for our help (militarily or otherwise), and that would not have created resentment as going in and destroying a country, blowing up families and torturing prisoners of war would do!

I would like to think that Iraq can become a great nation but I think if it did it wouldn't be down to what the US and UK do, it will be down the the Iraqi people to do in their own time and in their own way! you never know they might actually adopt many western ideals if we didn't attack them so much! The same thing goes for most Muslim countries. Christian western countries seem to forget that the Muslims had a liberal, technologically advanced society while we were still in the middle ages and if it wasn't for Islam it would have taken a lot longer to drag ourselves out of it! (Scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin via Arabic and Muslim scholars)

We should just pull out of Iraq now, and stop acting like a bull in a china shop not listening to anyone elses point of view (that doesn't mean we have to agree with it), and forcing people to be with us or against us! Sadly the world ain't black and white its gray and blue and pink and green and all the other colours! and if we actually took time to understand (not necessarily agree with) other views and beliefs we might just be able to drag itself out of this great mess we have gotten ourselves into!

I know I sound like a hippy, I'm not but I believe what I just said

lol that was a bit of an essay wasn't it

That would be quite impossible, as Resolution 1441 relates soley to the Iraqi state in relation to the UN. It was an order to Iraq to comply to the resolutions of the UN. An order to Iraq, thus the only party who could violate that order...was Iraq

America couldn't possibly be in violation of Resolution 1441, it's not a party to Resolution 1441. That resolution was between Iraq and the UN. It was an order by the UN to Iraq to comply with the previous UN order. The US could never be in violation of UN Resolution 1441, as UN Resolution 1441 never gave America any duty or order to violate.

Do you have any idea how these things actually work?

Of course he probably does. It's the same weasly Plausible Denial loophole that anti-abortion websites use when they post the hitlist of physicians in hopes that someone'll go Paul Hill on someone written up on it.

I have to say also that the US was in violation of international law, not a specific UN resolution.
It is technically illegal to invade a country to change the leadership, no matter how that leadership was formed.
The US and UK were only not punished because they have a veto on the security council, which is a wholly unfair part of the UN, lopsided towards the economic powerhouses of the world, giving the smaller (usually much more level headed countries due to the fact they are at the mercy of the bigger countries) practically no swaying power when it comes to security issues and meaning that if a country goes against the western view of what is correct they are more likely to be attacked, while countries like the US and UK and Europe as a whole can basically invade everywhere without any punishment!

For real?

Dude - if this was a metaphor, Gravlen and Neo Art would be gay lovers, and you would be the triple-thick condom they were using - that's how seriously you just got fucked.

I've just found my new sig.

How exactly do you "repair" a problem - invasion - by occupation? That's a nonsensical argument and I don't care how many of you people repeat it.

"Who else can." Well that's a toughie, because the United States is definitely the only country in the better financial position to help Iraq. Oh wait it isn't, and this is yet another stupid argument.

A 'responsibility'.... to continue the invasion, continue the war, continue fighting, and do exactly what the 'fucking up' was in the first place. Yeah, how responsible.

That doesn't follow at all. No, you're arguing that a rapist is morally obliged to continue raping. That it is in fact his "responsibility" to do so.

If someone argues that the invasion was wrong but the occupation is right, they ARE arguing that might makes right whether they like to acknowledge that or not.


Occupation is a result of staying to repair, you are there. If you are not there, you cannot fix anything. It's simple. Also, I don't mean 'occupation' in the loaded sense as you do, simply I mean having people in the country doing a repair job.

No-one else is willing to do it because of the unilateral nature of the invasion and costs involved, the risks, the diplomatic fallout. It's not just about money. This is one of the practicalities I talked about. That is not a stupid argument, and calling it stupid does not make it any less logical or based in fact.

A responsibility to stop fucking up and fix things. Is that so difficult to understand?

Don't presume to tell me what I am arguing. If I was arguing what you said, I would be agreeing with you, which I am not. Also, stating your analogy again does not make it any less nonsensical. If you want me to come back with another analogy, we can argue whose is best, but what does that prove?

"Might would be right" if an invader could invade a country, destroy it's infrastructure, and then fuck off without rebuilding it.

apologies for not breaking up the quotes, I am new to the forum and still working it out....:$

Supersize it.

:D ...for only 25 cents more, thank you, come again!

:((you missed my George Carlin reference/tribute.:(

:D ...for only 25 cents more, thank you, come again!

:((you missed my George Carlin reference/tribute.:(

Not American here...

It also presupposes that a US client state is somehow a good thing.

Well it is what we went in there for...we wanted an "ally" in the War on Terror...

Although Colonies are notoriously bad allies...lol....:rolleyes:

Your total is $2.52... please pull up to the 1st window.

-Zips past window at 40mph with windows down and mouth open-

In 1997, before Ritter was arrested for soliciting sex from a police officer posing as a teenager, Saddam Hussein indeed had been furtively building a nuclear arsenal, according to Ritter. But in 2002, a year after Ritter acquired a dirty little secret of his own, Hussein suddenly became beyond suspicion.
Is the Illuminati involved in this conspiracy, or is it the shape-shifting reptilians this time?

Resolution 1441 gave us the ability to enter Iraq.
If you can't tell the difference between the UN and the US, then you have no business discussing international politics.

Or you could show how the US is party to enforcing a UN resolution, and has the rights and responsibility to act as the UN's army?

Needless to say, the UK worked very closely to assist the Coalition in entering Iraq, thus the UK was for the war in a very real and material way.
Again, you need to be able to tell the difference between the UK administration and its army, and the UK as a nation. Once your able to fathom such complicated matters, then perhaps you'll be able to discuss things properly.

This must be yet another example that H2 would cite of me having my "backside handed to me". Strange it doesn't feel that way...
When one is unable to tell the difference between a nation and an international body, I imagine one finds it hard to feel one's own posterior.

Or you could show how the US is party to enforcing a UN resolution, and has the rights and responsibility to act as the UN's army?




who sends the UN forces the most Resources/Manpower?...

Chumblywumbly

Yes I agree with you, It was only the UK GOVERNMENT and ARMED FORCES that were in favour of the war, the majority of the public were against, most strongly against!

Its one of the many reasons that the Labour government has fallen out of favour with the people

and Skalvia If you mean who sends the most forces to work as UN forces (As in peace keeping) in the UN then its definitely not the US!

who sends the UN forces the most Resources/Manpower?...
It doesn't matter if it's the US or Lichtenstein, the US does not, no matter its involvement in the UN, have a mandate to invade sovereign countries and then hide behind UN resolutions.

Smiling Frogs can waffle on about UN Resolution 1441 as much as he likes, it doesn't change the fact that the US, the UK, or any coalition member, was not acting on UN authority.

You want to attempt to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq some other way? Fine; wax lyrical about 'humanitarian reasons' that had no say in the first few months of 2003, and have not had any since. But attempting to say the UN authorised the invasion of Iraq prior to the events is complete and utter nonsense.

The mere fact that Smiling Frogs is talking about WMDs, as if they were still a viable point of argumentation over Iraq, shows how out of touch he is.

and Skalvia If you mean who sends the most forces to work as UN forces (As in peace keeping) in the UN then its definitely not the US!

Well i was speaking more along the lines of who provides most of the budget...which is indisputably the US...

And, in peacekeeping, nine times outta ten, there's a US force accompanying the UN forces...

I agree on the whole with what Chumbly was saying, but, pretending that the UN is anything without USofA's support is stupid...

See League of Nations...

I agree on the whole with what Chumbly was saying, but, pretending that the UN is anything without USofA's support is stupid...
If I gave that impression, then I would rectify that; of course one of the most influential and powerful countries in the world is essential to the running of the UN. Moreover, the US knows this, and is quite happy to use the UN when it suits the administrations agenda, and ignore the UN (or use its UNSC veto to render any proposed resolution moot) when the UNs mandate doesn't suit that of the US.

This must be that "forged" yellowcake. Wilson was a proven liar about the Nigerien yellowcake. If you believe he was truthful read his testimony in front of Congress.

Nigerien, not Nigerian. The former is the proper demonym for a citizen of Niger, the latter for a citizen of Nigeria.

(Sorry, I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi.)

We'll have a see as to whether that's actually true or not when the Iraqis' next census comes out in 2009, won't we?

It's a fact that widespread sectarian cleansing took place in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, and fewer mixed neighborhoods is likely one of the reasons for the decrease in violence. The sectarian/criminal violence and cleansing also caused 4 million Iraqis to become refugees and has resulted in an ongoing humanitarian tragedy.

26/6/2008: UNHCR resumes second food distribution of the year in Syria
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=4863bbf64

27/5/2008: UNHCR faces difficulty helping neediest Iraqis in Jordan
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=483c1f2b4

29/4/2008: Survey shows most Iraqis in Syria still unwilling to return home
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=481734784

25/4/2008: Iraqi refugees in Syria hit by increased food and fuel prices
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=4811e9a24

7/12/2007: Conflicting reports on Iraqi return figures
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=47597e434

5/6/2007: Number of Iraqi displaced tops 4.2 million; shanty towns mushroom
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=466579e64

******

The material consequences of the Iraq War (ongoing and admittedly incomplete)

Over 4,500 American soldiers killed in combat so far; and an even greater number of veterans suicides (over 6,000 suicides in 2005 alone).

Over 30,000 American soldiers wounded, so far.

The straining of the US military from continuous redeployment, falling enlistment, lowered standards, decreasing readiness, and the above causalities.

Between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed, and many more wounded (and there are other estimates that put the number of dead higher still, as much as a million). We don’t really know how many Iraqi civilians have really died because the US military, as a matter of policy, does not count dead civilians (they also obscure the coffins and funerals of fallen US soldiers).

Over 4 million Iraqis displaced at the height of the violence.

A massive brain drain in Iraq as educated professionals fled the country.

Significant increases in food prices and public unrest in Jordan and Syria due to Iraqi refugees.

Over a trillion dollars in barrowed money that the United States could have spent on worthwhile domestic programs, or not spent at all, and will have to pay back. This is in addition to paying the financial/economic costs of supporting (or neglecting) the US military’s wounded and psychologically damaged veterans.

In every respect it is a catastrophe, a complete and utter catastrophe, one that every person who supported the idiotic Iraq Invasion and War is ultimately responsible for.

I see that I've been reassuringly pre-empted, resulting in the kind of horror thats rumoured to happen in Prison....However, sloppy 5ths bother me not....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

I hate to "hand your behind to you" but:

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/
This must be that "forged" yellowcake. .


Entirely different, as that was bagged, tagged and monitored by sattellite at a secure location.

The forgeries were conducted in order to convince the public that Hussein was abroad and in the midst of a programmed of nuclear development when in fact it had been abandoned nearly a decade beforehand.


Wilson was a proven liar about the Nigerian yellowcake. If you believe he was truthful read his testimony in front of Congress..

The IAEA stated that the documents were forged. Subsequently the CIA admitted the documents were forged. Are they 'proven liars' too?


And UN resolution 1441.

And 1441 indeed...
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2]

and

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441


who sends the UN forces the most Resources/Manpower?...

And that has what to do with what, exactly?

my question is still the same: "winning WHAT?" and to the bennifit of whome and what? at the price of thousands of solders dead and somewhere arround or in excess of a million civilians, and the trashing of the infrastructure of several countries, on what seem to have been a rather lame, if not completely invented, excuse.

i really don't see that reverend right said anything anyone with half a brain hadn't already concluded as probable.

=^^=
.../\...

who sends the UN forces the most Resources/Manpower?...

Not the U.S. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/pko/due2008.htm)

Please show me the official UN document that declares the US in violation of UN Resolution 1441.
First of all, I'm happy to see you concede all your other points. I'm almost sorry that you were dogpiled, but if you're gonna debate this issue - and there are still things that are ripe for debate - you shouldn't start it on a lie or a falsehood. Pretending that the disarmament issue wasn't the primary rationale for the invasion is just silly.

That said, let's turn to your last post. And to save energy, I'll just quote Neo Art here.
That would be quite impossible, as Resolution 1441 relates soley to the Iraqi state in relation to the UN. It was an order to Iraq to comply to the resolutions of the UN. An order to Iraq, thus the only party who could violate that order...was Iraq

America couldn't possibly be in violation of Resolution 1441, it's not a party to Resolution 1441. That resolution was between Iraq and the UN. It was an order by the UN to Iraq to comply with the previous UN order. The US could never be in violation of UN Resolution 1441, as UN Resolution 1441 never gave America any duty or order to violate.

Do you have any idea how these things actually work?

Now, turning back to Smiling Frogs: If you meant that you'd like to see the official UN document that declares the US in violation of international law, well, I'll refer you to Fartsniffage. There won't be any resolution in the UNSC as long as the US has the power of veto. And there won't be a non-binding resolution in the General assembly, because the political cost would be too much for most member states to consider it.

I should mention that the quotes I've provided about how the Secretary General and the French, one of the Permanent members of the UNSC, have both expressed their views on the illegality of the invasion, and such harsh criticism is almost unheard of.

However, you can always start with the United Nations Charter and see how the restrictions on use of force are laid out there, and you'll see that the US overstepped those bounds. And that leads to the conclusion that the US did indeed violate international law.

It will be interesting to see if Iraq, once the last US soldier has left, decides to bring the case before the International Court of Justice and demand reparations for an illegal invasion. And it will be interesting to see if the US would be willing to try the case before the court.

For real?

Dude - if this was a metaphor, Gravlen and Neo Art would be gay lovers, and you would be the triple-thick condom they were using - that's how seriously you just got fucked.
:tongue:

Such vivid imagery... I can picture it now! :D

who sends the UN forces the most Resources/Manpower?...
India?

Those would be the ones who sends most manpower at least.

I agree on the whole with what Chumbly was saying, but, pretending that the UN is anything without USofA's support is stupid...

See League of Nations...


Yeah your right the UN would be nothing without the US, but that doesn't mean that the US can therefore screw everyone else over and get an abnormally large portion of the voting rights ect. its called the UNITED Nation, united would tend to suggest equality to some extent, something that the UN has never even come close to having!

The UN needs the US but that doesn't mean that they should try and keep them at all costs! the UN COULD work without the US, it would just have less financial and military backing. The EU seems to have worked (all be it with a lot of unnecessary waffling and laws that don't make sense but, in general it has worked in making countries that want to join the union better as well as being a very large political force in its own right. The US might have the military but hard power isn't everything, the EU has probably done more to reintegrate former communist countries with its soft power than the US ever did in the cold war with its non-combat form of hard power (even fully blown hard power in places like Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan)

Anyway what I was trying to say is that yes the UN works better WITH the US but it COULD work without it, it would just maybe need a bit of a rethink about how it goes about diplomacy and peace-keeping, which to be honest can only be a good thing!

And, in peacekeeping, nine times outta ten, there's a US force accompanying the UN forces...


Ok.

Show us ten peacekeeping operations where in nine of them US forces accompany them - not as UN staff but as independent US forces.

Occupation is a result of staying to repair, you are there. If you are not there, you cannot fix anything. It's simple. Also, I don't mean 'occupation' in the loaded sense as you do, simply I mean having people in the country doing a repair job.

Right, you mean "occupation" in some magical sense that has no bearing on reality. You mean to euphemize and call an occupying military force "people... doing a repair job." I get it. It is indeed simple.

And wrong.

No-one else is willing to do it because of the unilateral nature of the invasion and costs involved, the risks, the diplomatic fallout. It's not just about money. This is one of the practicalities I talked about. That is not a stupid argument, and calling it stupid does not make it any less logical or based in fact.

That is not a 'logical argument,' and calling it logical does not make it any less fallacious and absurd.

You're right, no-one else is willing to invade and occupy Iraq for shits and giggles.

A responsibility to stop fucking up and fix things. Is that so difficult to understand?

"Stop fucking up." So, leaving the country we invaded, instead of continuing to occupy it as a foreign conqueror? Oh. No.

I understand what you're saying all too well. You want it every which way. You want to admit that the invasion was wrong, but you don't want to reverse that wrong. You want to have the troops stay there, but you don't want to call them troops. You want to continue occupying a country, but you wish me to call that "responsible."

Don't presume to tell me what I am arguing. If I was arguing what you said, I would be agreeing with you, which I am not. Also, stating your analogy again does not make it any less nonsensical. If you want me to come back with another analogy, we can argue whose is best, but what does that prove?


You have not in any way shown the analogy "nonsensical" or even addressed it. You've just ignored it.

"Might would be right" if an invader could invade a country, destroy it's infrastructure, and then fuck off without rebuilding it.

Might would be right if an invader can invade a country, wrongly (you admit its wrong), but be allowed to stay on the flimsy pretext of "rebuilding" it. By calling this a "responsibility" you are only incouraging more of the same. You are contradicting your earlier admissions that the invasion was wrong.

Trick of the eye made the thread-title look to me like "AP Now Says We're Whining in Iraq"

Right, you mean "occupation" in some magical sense that has no bearing on reality. You mean to euphemize and call an occupying military force "people... doing a repair job." I get it. It is indeed simple.

And wrong.

Let me make something clear: I do not think the invasion was legal, I do not think the US should occupy Iraq. I also do not think they should leave Iraq in ruins. I am saying that I cannot see how Iraq can be restored to anything near even 50% of normality without security, and I cannot see anyone else willing or able to provide it. Any military presence should be contingent on rebuilding and proportionate to the security needed, e.g. phased withdrawals from stable regions.


That is not a 'logical argument,' and calling it logical does not make it any less fallacious and absurd.

You're right, no-one else is willing to invade and occupy Iraq for shits and giggles.
Why is not logical or fact based to say that no-one else is willing to clear up the mess America has made because the invasion was illegal? Why is it fallacious and absurd to point out that this means America is going to have some kind of presence in Iraq if it is going to fulfil its obligation to rebuild?

"Stop fucking up." So, leaving the country we invaded, instead of continuing to occupy it as a foreign conqueror? Oh. No.

I understand what you're saying all too well. You want it every which way. You want to admit that the invasion was wrong, but you don't want to reverse that wrong. You want to have the troops stay there, but you don't want to call them troops. You want to continue occupying a country, but you wish me to call that "responsible."

Of course I want to reverse the wrong of invasion, and part of reversing that wrong involves restoring Iraq's infrastructure as well as a full withdrawal. As I said many posts ago, if security could be provided by another force that would be better - but I cannot see how this is ever going to happen for reasons I have already covered.


You have not in any way shown the analogy "nonsensical" or even addressed it. You've just ignored it.

Your analogy misses the crucial point of the harm done by 'taking the USA's penis out of Iraq's vagina'. Yes, a rapist should stop raping, but if the US has a barbed penis and suddenly and quickly pulls it's penis out without thinking, it rips Iraq's vulva to shreds, prevents it ever having children and leaves it bleeding to death. I have framed this argument in your terms, but I don't think its particularly useful.

I don't think any analogy is useful in trying to convey such a complex situation as Iraq. It distracts you from the real issues at hand, and suggests simplistic answers based on emotive aphorisms instead of consideration of the facts.


Might would be right if an invader can invade a country, wrongly (you admit its wrong), but be allowed to stay on the flimsy pretext of "rebuilding" it. By calling this a "responsibility" you are only incouraging more of the same. You are contradicting your earlier admissions that the invasion was wrong.

Allowing a country to invade, destroy and then leave a smoking ruin behind without having to fix anything won't encourage more of the same either? Look at the US casualties during occupation compared to the war itself - don't you think they would rather have left quickly? Wasn't that the original plan, that everything would be rebuilt within 6 months or something ludicrous?

We both believe the invasion was wrong, we both think the US should be responsible for repairing the damage (I am assuming that follows if you believe the US invaded illegally), we both think the US should withdraw. My contention is that the lesser of two evils is a US presence while the country is rebuilt because I can see no alternative for providing security I think that you are ignoring the harm done by chaos that would ensue if foreign forces left.