I have a delivery of several thousand gallons of blood. Okay if I just leave it on your lawn here? Thanks ever so.
Yes, you are. You are claiming that our actions don’t affect how other people act towards us. You are claiming that, say, the Iraqis are so inhuman that we can kill them by the thousands without making them more hostile to us. You are claiming that we can threaten Iran and insult it and it’s leadership and people won’t change their behavior in the slightest. You are claiming that we can treat our “allies” with contempt and they’ll remain just as willing to help.
They are tools that do what the people leading them and composing them want them to do. Piss off the leadership or the population and that will affect how they act.
It was not justified; it was a war of pure aggression, motivated by greed, fanaticism, and malice. In other words, a reflection of America’s nature.
You state that as if it’s a well-ducumented fact. However, it runs counter to everything I have heard up to this point.
If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it – so do you have unimpeachable cites to back up your claim?
So the reasons laid out by Bush in his State of the Union address - “Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups” - two of which dealt with WMDs, and one of which was less applicable to Iraq than it was to Saudi Arabia and other ME countries - justified the war? Or are you talking about his stated goals of removing an evil dictator and bringing democracy to the people? Do I really even need to bring up (for the millionth time) how many other countries fit those descriptions that we don’t intend to invade and destroy, or is there some other justification the neocons came up with that I’m forgetting? And if a war “wasn’t needed”, how exactly does that differ from it being unjustified?
I am only prejudiced against morons. I have tried to change, but I just can’t, I have learned to accept this defect in myself. I can live with it.
True.
False.
Waitjustagoddamminnit, if you’re talking about the AUMF legislation rather than UN authorization, that’s just unilateral legislation by the U.S.; you can’t cite it on the question of whether there was any legitimate casus belli by the standards of international law, which is the only relevant standard (apart from more theoretical ethical standards, but let’s not drag St. Augustine into this) if you’re going to argue the war was “justified.”
Furthermore, the reasons cited by the AUMF were:
All of the reasons relating to “terrorism” turned out to be based on false information. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the only al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq were in the Kurdish region Hussein did not control, etc.
You have an impressively selective memory. There was no other reason laid out; middle America was sold on “Shit! They’ve got WMDs!”
It wasn’t until after there were no WMDs that the reasons became “liberate the Iraqis”, “destroy Saddam’s ability to make war”, etc.
Your assumption is that I don’t think we (and when I say we, I mean the western world) would not be justified in intervening militarily in places like Burma or Sudan or pick your dictatorship. Your assumption would be wrong. In fact, I think we should be doing more of this, however we need to realize that to depose a dictator, rebuild and upgrade a countries infrastructure and creating a stable government is, just as I’ve been saying all along WRT Iraq, a 15-25 year commitment.
The Al-Queda connection was overstated, and in that respect my last post was wrong when I said “right on the money”. I apologize. However, Iraq was blatantly and openly supporting other terrorist organizations-anyone remember the photos of a smiling Sadaam paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?- and frankly that was good enough for me. As for the rest of the list, except for the WMD parts, all of that was true.
I would suggest that it is your memory that is at least partly faulty, all of the other reasons were listed-they’re right there in the link BG posted-but you are correct that WMD was the one this administration latched onto and defended the most, and they were wrong. That doesn’t mean the other reasons are invalid.
This sounds suspiciously like an opinion about international relations. But what does it matter to you? Your opinion doesn’t matter; no one’s does.
Remember, nations act only according to their own perceived best interests. They are “inhuman, soulless, emotionless constructs WRT international relations.” You, and every other American citizen, could have agreed at the start that the war was totally unjustified and evil, and it would not have altered the course of events one iota, correct? America would have still acted in its own perceived best interests, just as Iraq acted in its own perceived best interests, independent of any contribution on our part. As citizens, we have no influence in the actions of our respective nations. We’re all just along for the ride.
Obviously the truth of this axiom is borne out by the fact that the U.S. government made no apparent effort to influence public opinion regarding Iraq during the buildup to the war. If a population’s “like” or “dislike” of a foreign country made any difference in international relations, one might reasonably expect some sort of propaganda campaign in this regard. But of course nothing of the sort happened; it was simply unnecessary.
I think it’s more likely that you’re having trouble coming up with such a scenario because it’s patently ridiculous. Where the hell is this despotic regime going to come from, on a planet where almost every man, woman and child respects America? From inside the Hollow Earth? Who would arm them and shelter them in their effort to overthrow a respected ally of everyone else in the world?
Contrariwise, if a country manages to back itself into a situation where it is hated by almost everyone else on Earth, how many governments will ignore the will of their own people to guard that country’s interests? Are they really going to vigorously police themselves for threats against such a hated nation, or ally in its defense? Perhaps if bribed or directly threatened; but how many governments can a single country credibly threaten at once?
Methinks that “the respect of the rest of the world” and “a country’s best interests” are not as antithetical as you appear willing to paint them.
Not much to add except that’s it’s taken you so long to figure out Weirddave is a “complete total idiot.”
Hell, I came to that conclusion waaay before the actual invasion.
As for the thread itself, I can only thank newcrasher for reminding us all that this bloody clusterfuck is far from over.
The Moorlocks, presumably.
And by what internationally accepted standard of justification? (See post #106.)
And what makes you think it would work out any better in any such country than it has in Iraq?
Real mature.
Oh, well―sticks and stones.
Iraq’s not over yet. See what I said above, 15-25 year commitment? Ask me in 14 years, assuming we don’t leave Iraq prematurely.
says the person who posted “Do you want someone to call the whambulance?”
So you’re saying we should regime-change a list of dictatorships and make a 15-25-year commitment to nation-building in each?! Have you failed to notice we have not the resources for any of that? That we’re overstretched as it is?
And, again, the real question, which you keep dodging: What gives us the right? America ain’t so special. We’re not sovereign over this world and there is no basis by which we can claim exemption from the same standards by which all other nations’ actions are judged.
The quoted passage looks pretty sloppy, IMO.
The Hiroshima bomb was estimated to have an explosive yield of 13,000 to 16,000 tons of TNT-equivalent bombs. Little Boy - Wikipedia
Nuclear bombs are rated by their damage potential (explosive force). Not by the actual weight of the warhead.
So, if 1,820 tons of TNT bombs have been dropped on Iraq, that is the equivalent of 11.3% of the Hiroshima bomb (16000/1820, or almost 1/8th) in explosive force.
To say (or imply) we dropped the equivalent of 14,000 A-bombs on Iraq is… incorrect.
Ultimately there are no rights―only power. Power is its own justification.
:dubious: Let’s try to find some standard that can show the distinction between Winston Churchill and Genghis Khan, shall we?