Hip, hip hooray! The pro-war triumphalist thread

Great Debates
61

Well, **I Know Lots **, welcome to the SDMB. A few replies…

"I suggested nothing of the kind in my over-the-top mockery (yes, over-the-top mockery and deliberate childishness. Next time I’m embarking on a leg-pull I will hold up a giant sign saying “IRONY” for the benefit of anyone with a single-digit IQ). "

First off, Know, Jonathan Swift you aint. Second, this isn’t really a forum for leg-pulling or over-the-top mockery, and it certainly isn’t a forum of deliberate childishness. Third, implying that your interlocuters have single-digit IQs is Pit behavior. In fact, as El_Kabong already said, your entire OP was more appropriate for the Pit.

"The “anti-war” types, in their own genuinely childish and reductionist way, have spent months yelling and shouting down reasoned arguments from the pro-war and undecided camps. "

Talking about “types” in an insubstantiated way isn’t going to get you credit with anyone. Take a look at the debates on the subject of war in this forum for the past few months. Or, if you prefer, take a look at the anti-war editorials and articles that have appeared in the US and/or UK press. Look in the centrist New York Times, or in the Guardian, or in the left-liberal Nation, or in the left-radical ZMagazine. Find an example or two of anti-war writers’ “shouting down reasoned arguments.” Then maybe you’ll have the makings of a debate. Otherwise you’ve got a rant, and it’s appropriate forum is the Pit–if you absolutely must post at all.

"They repeatedly predicted, and presumably were looking forward to, a long, miserable road to victory for the coaltion, popular resistance from the Iraqi people against the “invaders”, and a final bloodbath in Baghdad. Which they could follow with a smug “I told you so.”’

As others have already said, none of these arguments were at all common either in this forum or in the publications I’ve named above. Most here on both sides, in fact, predicted a fairly short war; while most responsible publications predicted mixed response from the Iraqi people–and at this early stage, given that the fighting isn’t over, the occupation has just begun, and there’s as much of a looting free-for-all as there is a genuinely political response taking place on the streets of Iraqi cities, that seems legitimate.

So far, therefore, you’ve proved that your views are childish and reductionist. But, your protestations to the contrary, I you’ve provided no evidence that anyone else has sunk to that level. So basically you’re shadowboxing with your own anti-war strawman. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

“After months of abuse and being labelled as an evil warmonger and all that by the holier-than-thou “anti-war” camp, I do think I deserve to mock them. What goes around comes around. Next time, certain people should think before they takes sides and make predictions and start heaping abuse on anyone who speaks up against them.”

Well, I’m not surprised to find out this is personal for you, as that would account for the self-professed but still unjustified juvenile behavior. OTOH, unless you’ve been posting regularly in the Pit I can’t imagine that you endured this traumatic abuse here. Once again, you seem to have a Pit rant in mind–if you absolutely must.

“And, by the way, I do know what I’m talking about, boyo. I’ve got an Master Degree in IR from Durham University. My MA degree trumps your smugness. Neener neener and all that.”

Congratulations on your educational achievements (I mean that sincerely). But don’t they make you feel a bit sheepish about posting such tripe in a debate forum?

FTR, that’s girl-o, not boyo.

[sub]Oh, and btw it takes a least a Ph.D. to be as smug as I am ;).[/sub]

62

Since when do Iraqis use the expression “wankers”. Not that I’m suspicious, or anything.

[sub]No, it doesn’t[/xub]

63

Since when do Iraqis use the expression “wankers”. Not that I’m suspicious, or anything.

[sub]No, it doesn’t[/sub]

64

As I’ve asked elsewhere, you think they’ll lower the terror alert down to “green” for the Victory Celebration? See as how we’ve had this big win in the War on Terror, well, then, aren’t we just oodles and gobs safer?

65

I’m so glad mandi didn’t mark any of my papers, at any level. It just … stings

“Go Home Human Shields American Wankers.” - Band name or new sig, I’m torn ?

66

Congratulations on winning the Battle for Baghdad, now to do something both more difficult and of lasting benefit … win the peace.

67

A lost work by e e cummings perhaps?

68

“Hiding behind words”? It’s not we’re calling them “probationary noncromulent veruglant monsolents” or nonsense phrase like that. We’re calling them what they are: collateral damage. It’s clear to anyone with a good grasp of the English language what that means. How is this “hiding behind words”? Is referring to a human being with any term other than “human being” dehumanizing? Is it intellectually dishonest to say that US forces suffered X casualties today? Should the newscasters instead say that X human beings who are in the US military died? Oh, wait, should I have said “human beings who cast news” instead of “newscasters”?

ElvisL1ves

So Iraq is “just” a minor sponsor of terrorism Is that supposed to be reassuring? And what evidence is there that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are major sponsors of terrorism?

I really don’t get this. People keep saying things similar to this, and I really don’t see why the fact that Al Qaeda is the “NUmber One enemy” means that we shouldn’t fight anyone else until they are defeated. In the war on terror, like any other war, it is often wise to open a new front even when an old one is not finished. In WWII, the Germans were our number one enemy, and yet we didn’t invade them until after we had invaded Italy, France, and several other countries. If someone had said during WWII “We shouldn’t attack Italy until Germany is taken out of the war”, the absurdity of that would be obvious.

ChaosGod

Where have you been the last ten years? Iraq has shot at American planes, put UN inspectors in “custody”, lied to the UN and violated their resolutions, repeatedly violated the terms ending the last war, executed Iraqis that helped the inspectors find weapons, and rewarded terrorists for attacking our ally. Saddam has practically dared the US to attack him.

Hentor the Barbarian

I think you’re missing the joke. Unless I’ve been whooshed.

69

Well, I suppose you have, although that was not my intention. It was, rather, to make a little joke on the old “ass-u-me” saying. As I said, a little joke.

70

It’s only been what, three weeks?

Am I the only person who still remembers that the U.S. justification for this war was to relieve Iraq of weapons of mass destruction?

Am I the only one who notices that, ummm, none have been found?

Am I the only one who notices that the Bush administration has completely stopped talking about WMDs and is now suddenly pretending that Iraqi liberation was the casus belli?

No, I don’t believe I can be the only one who notices this stuff. There’s a very big elephant in the corner.

71

you aren’t the only one.

This is what bugs me about the crowing of some people.

They seem to forget this wasn’t originally a war of liberation, sure that was part of the plan but not the reason. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Had the Bush administration not worried about potential WMDs and their poliferation, they would have let old Saddam continue killing and torturing his people as all other administrations had done (including George Bush Sr).

I am glad the people in Baghdad are celibrating their freedom. It is a wonderful sight and you can’t help but be moved by it… hopefully that euphoria will spread throughout the rest of that city and then the country. Hopefully that is a symbol of a better furture for these people.

That doesn’t change the fact that the whole reason for this war was to disarm Iraq from specific weapons.

If Geroge W and friends said “lets go to war to liberate the Iraqi people,” you have every right to say “hooray we did what we wanted”… except that isn’t what was said.

It is very possible that before this war many US citizens would have beeen reluctant to risk their soldiers and go into the country just to liberate foriegners who really have nothing to do with America.

No, this war was sold as a proactive attack on a nation to protect Americans from the potential terrorism that Iraq was supposedly sponsering in creating WMDs. The UN was ignored because it refused to disarm Saddam.

When Colin Powell went to the UN he spoke of Chemical weapon sights and the failure of inspections. He talked of Saddam hiding weapons and flaunting a resolution based on illegal weapons. He did not plead for the Security council to back the liberation of the country for the sake of the people. He did not suggest a new resolution to free people from dictatorship.

I’m still waiting for the moment of truth. If (I said If) those weapons don’t exist how is the international community supposed to trust the US in the future?

72

The clear message is “support the PNAC and (incidendally) GWB’s re-election or else you’re toast”.

73

No, it is not - quite the opposite, since the real problems are not only not being dealt with effectively, but the resources are being diverted inappropriately. Why are you willing to go along with that?

Sigh … Google “State Department terrorism report”. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were, in fact Saudis, and the Saudi government has provided far more support for Palestine than Iraq has (in addition to being pretty repressive, as is Pakistan). Pakistan has been, and probably still is, a sponsor of Al Qaeda, unlike Iraq. Try to keep up with the news, will ya?

74

And that’s swell - it’s a good cause for cheer. All the TV images yesterday are cause for celebration. As for casualties and damage, hey, none of us were actively wishing for it, but it’s war, that’s the nature of the beast. Doesn’t preclude moments of hope or cheer within all the chaos.

Let’s all remember we are celebrating the liberation of the Iraqi people and the removal of a threat to national security (Hussein). If we go “lick it, you peaceniks”, we are forgetting the reason for our celebration. We did not go to war to slap the faces of the doves. We went to get a job done – and our forces are doing it. ooo-rah! But I do want them to be done with it ASAP and brought back home.

Two subjective commentaries:
(1) Besides there being no evidence that [except for a handful of nuts] they were in any way praying for a disaster in order to go “I told you so” at us, my anecdotal experience with the antiwar factions’ typical member has been that they are not the type to go around neener-ing. It’s just not in them. The ones I know would probably then find some more reasons to be even more agonized and anxious about what could happen next.

(2) On a more personal note, since I absolutely loathe being neenered at, or having my face rubbed in my mistakes, I try to not do it unto others. Sometimes I fail to exercise that control, but I try. Maybe that just makes me an effete PC wanker, so be it.

75

It should be pointed out that just over a week ago a few hundred Iraqi citizens also felt safe enough to go into the streets to celebrate how wonderful a person they thought Saddam was. Neither factions can claim to represent Iraq.

These are people who have learnt to wholeheartedly agree with whoever is in charge, on pain of death. So the sudden conversion of a tiny fraction of the population to USA cheerleaders should be treated with caution. Nor should the joy of looters and vandals be seen as the legitimate mood of a nation.

The majority of Iraq remain in a shattered country, in dire need of humanitary relief, fearful of an army of foreigners who walk their streets, shell-shocked in their homes and very much concerned for their future lives and that of their country.

76

I’m sure one of triumphant hawkes will explain the WoMD question in simple terms that I can understand.

I’m sure I remember being told that the U.S. administration knew where they were located, even if Blix & Co couldn’t find them.

Now it seems the latest spin is the “arsenal” has been moved to Syria. Plausible and that this would certainly get such weaponry much closer to the hands of terrorists, but the question of timing is intriguing:

  1. they were moved before inspectors went back in.
  2. they were moved after inspections started but before the conflict
  3. They were moved during the conflict.

IMHO #1 is the most likely, #3 the least and hence if the US knew where they were, why was Iraq on the radar to secure/destroy them. Why hasn’t Israel been screaming that such weaponry has been moved into adjoining territory. Instead the rumblings were about Syrian involvement were of (conventional) weaponry coming into Iraq.

Isn’t the simplest, and only holistic, explanation that these WoMD (weaponised, deliverable and in significant numbers) don’t exist?

77

And, it’s worth pointing out that Resolution 1441 also put an obligation on states to provide such info to the Inspectors but as the inspectors said, the location info they got was rubbish.

No matter what is found, “he’s hiding them in Syria” is just the opening shot in the propaganda war to convince the gullible that a war on Syria is justified.

78

I never said it was true, I was merely curious.

After all, we’ve only seen one side of the story – the pro-American one that CNN and Fox News have been giving us. I’d love to see a bunch of Iraqis in Baghdad gush loving praise for George W. Bush on al Jazeera, for inst–

Oh, wait. We bombed the al Jazeera office the night before, didn’t we? How conveeeeeeeeeeeenient.

“Sarge, there’s a guy over there rallying the crowd against us.”
“Hmmm, might he be a Fedayeen rabble-rouser? Better take him in before things get ugly.”

79

You mean, why do I trust the professionals to make better decisions about how to deploy our forces than some guy on the internet?

And by “Is that supposed to be reassuring?” I meant “Is that supposed to make us less worried about an Iraq run by Saddam?”

[qquote]Sigh … Google “State Department terrorism report”.
[/quote]

That’s your cite? Google? Hey, guys! Still wondering what the evidence for Iraqi WMD is? Google it! If you can’t find it, that’s your problem.

Let’s see: nationality of hijackers, irrelevant to government position; Saudi support for Palestine, possibly true, but I believe that the US gives even more support and perhaps I’m not “keeping up with the news enough”, but I haven’t heard about the entire population of Palestine being decalred terrorists; repression, irrelevent to this issue; past sponsorship by Pakistan, unsubstantiated and only tangentially relevant; current sponsorship, would be relevant if you had anything more than just allegations.

rjung

You said that you believed it.

80

Eljeffe

No, you’re not. As much as I might like this world to be the sort of place where you would be a sick bastard for playing the numbers, you’re not, and I apologise. I can’t play the numbers. To me, a life is a life, and I can’t really count any higher than one. It’s my fault, not yours. Yesterday was just a bad day for anyone to start a thread for the sole purpose of pointing out how much I didn’t care about the welfare of the people in Iraq, is all.

TheRyan>

Civillian casualties? Innocents killed? There are plenty of ways to say what it is. “Collateral damage” refers to everything that was damaged that you didn’t intend to damage. When we destroy some old Mesopotamian temples, that’s collateral damage too. As unfortunate as the archeological damage to Iraq is, it is nothing compared to the loss of human life. If you lump a lost life in the same category as a broken pot, no matter how historically significant or valuable that pot was, it is dehumanising and demeaning to the people involved.