Invasion of Iraq vs. invasion of Iran. A question or two.

Great Debates
21

How so? If we were to invade Iran, it would make a viable Kurdistan an even more tenable idea. Just break away the Kurdish provinces of Iran and Iraq and declare an independent Kurdistan, which we will then free once fair elections take place. “Fair”, of course, meaning “Pro-US”, which will be easy to accomplish since there are actually Pro-US Kurdish factions already without having to dangle the sovereignty carrot.

The plus to this would be we would be able to leave large parts of both countries untouched by our security forces. Sure, the downside would be likely war between Kurdistan and Turkey, but that’s “Turkey’s problem”.

Not advocating screwing Turkey like that, but on the balance it would be better to have MORE Kurdish territory under our direct control than less.

22

Of all the Bush claims about Iraq, Afghanistan, and terror, this is by far the most bizarre I’ve heard yet.

“Well, it’s 2003. We damn well better invade somebody.”

23

However that would destabilize Iraq, something the administration seems unwilling to risk at the moment. The Arab populations of Iraq ( and the Turkomen, for that matter ) have no interest in losing the oil-rich north and there is in addition the persistent problem of the Arab population in Mosul, another uncomfortable legacy of SH ( an issue that is playing out as we speak ).

If Iraq seemed to be on the verge of an irreparable fracture ( which we may yet see ), I have no doubt that the administration would accept, possibly even encourage a more-or-less pro-U.S. Kurdish state in the north. Further, Turkey might well prefer that to the spectre of a hostile theocratic Iraq ( if it came down to such a stark choice ).

But as long as some prospect of a united Iraq survives, I sincerely doubt from everything I’ve seen/read so far, that the U.S. would support an independent Kurdistan. As long as that’s the case they can’t risk trying such a gambit in Iran without risking stirring up major problems in Iraq.

I might add that the long term stability of such a Kurdish nation might be an open question. They have dine an admirable job of burying the hatchet lately, but there are some very serious internal divisions among the Kurds. Remember the two largest Kurdish political factions ( which represent groups that speak almost mutually unintelligible dialects of Kurdish ) once spent a lot more time fighting each other than either did fighting “external” enemies.

  • Tamerlane
24

Haven’t heard that one. Cite?

25

Why would HAVE to occupy Mecca to hold Saudi Arabia? We could just cordon it off and gallantly promise not to despoil it so long as the Saudis put all those Wahhabi schools out of biz and let us go through everyone’s bank accounts and so forth. The princes would undoubtedly fold very quickly – they’re addicted to that oil money.

26

That sounds eerily similar to the approach we tried in Najaf and Fallujah.

27

I’ll give that half a mark for:

  • State TV:
  • Not Saddam himself
  • not a direct quote
  • a foreign language
  • The oft wrong Guardian.

Chiefly I’m sceptical because a direct denunciation of the sort you describe would be 24 carat propaganda for the pre-war case and I don’t recall a whiff of it.

My recollection was of a muted Saddam when questioned.

Can you corroborate?

On the other hand when I contemplate what I believe, I cannot recall it all at once. :wink:

28

Saddam Hussein: Speech to the US 12.09.2001

This, doesn’t appear to support Nietzsche-of-the-SDMB’s contention.

On the other hand, for those willing to brave the prose, some of it is disturbingly precient considering the source.

Sense from the fiend, what could be more terrible?

29

‘prescient’

30

Actually, I think that further supports it. It sounds like a much more well worded version of “they had it coming.”
For example:

His entire essay has a constant theme of “where’s the evidence.” Don’t worry your pretty little sadistic head about it. They’ll make that up as they go along.
Regardless of how one feels about American policies in the Middle East or elsewhere, 12/9/2001 is not the time for a head of state to ask the world community to “step back and reflect upon the sins which brought us here.” To do so comes across as uncaring to those who were effected. No one would have ever accused Saddam of caring about Americans, but to needle them with a “you had it coming” made it easier for the Bush Administration to start beating the drums of war against Iraq.

Lots of folks guessed what was about to come. Perhaps he should have used his clairvoyance to ready himself and his country for the upcoming onslaught.

I’ll see if I can find any other sources, but you should remember that state TV under Hussein wasn’t playing anything unless he approved it. Why are they playing nationalistic theme music and displaying “down with America” with images of the towers falling? Is that some strange attempt at displaying sympathy?
If I recall correctly, Kim Jong-Il was the one who remained muted, not Saddam.

31

Simply put…Iraq was easier to invade than Iran would be. There are myriad reasons for this. First of all, Iraq was under UN sanctions. Not only that, but they were in violation of some of those sanctions. They had pursued (and lost) in an agressive war to anex Kuait. There was the whole WMD question which was up in the air. Put together, it was an easier sell to the American people, with a fig leaf to hide behind as far as the international perspective went (i.e. Iraq really was under UN sanctions, was under an embargo, and there really were questions about whether or not Saddam had disarmed…him being so secretive played right into US hands). Simply put, the US had an excuse, no matter how thin you might think it was, to invade Iraq. We had no such excuse (at the time) to invade Iran. So, we invaded Iraq, even if it was the lesser of the two threats…then and now.

Ok, so much for the political equation. From a purely military perspective Iraq was the obvious choice. We had troops on Iraq’s borders, and logistical staging grounds in SA and Kuait to support an invasion. We could stage up slowly and prepare, and when we were ready to strike we could basically just roll across the border. Iraq’s military was pretty beat up, and while Saddam certainly tried to re-arm and re-equip it, arms and equipment just aren’t enough when going up against a power like the US…there is the moral angle as well. We had already beaten the Iraqi’s, and beaten them badly, in GW I. No way were they prepared to go against us a second time. In addition, Iraq’s population is much smaller than Iran’s. Finally, at least before the invasion, I’m sure the planners who look at these things would have to say that Iraq’s more secularly oriented population (ok, I did say BEFORE the invasion) would put up a lot less resistance than the larger Iranian population motivated by theology and all that implies.

Besides, there is nothing to say that Iran wasn’t the ultimate goal (before we got bogged down in the present Iraqi insurgency of course). Look at a map…then look at the two countries we DID invade (Iraq and Afghanistan). Then think logistics. Its quite plausable that originally the thinking was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to provide the US with staging grounds for an invasion of Iran if it became necessary.

As I’ve said before, I think it was a major fuck up that the US invaded Iraq when and how we did it. It was totally unnecessary…at least based on the data that I have. Its tied us down and cost us boatloads of treasure…not to mention the lives, no matter how relatively small the casualties have been on both sides. I think it was a total waste of our military, which is being used in a way it really isn’t optimally designed to be used in…and for reasons that don’t seem to justify the cost in either material, lives, or the stretching of our military resources. Having said all that though, I can see reasons why things were done the way they were. I don’t agree with the reasons…but then, I’m not privy to all the information either (though as a citizen I SHOULD be privy to some of it so I can make an informed decision).

-XT

32

This:

contradicts this:

Sure, that is the theme and a good one too. How though, does that translate into “they had it coming”?

Doesn’t.

Invasion of Iraq, absent evidence, zionist considerations. All this by 12 Sept?

Be fair now, who else was that accurate, that early?

Meantime, I’m still red-flagging the TV story.

33

Cite?

34

Again?

Poke around the last 6 or 7 times you’ve had that question answered.

35

In other words “No, I won’t give you a cite.”

If you’ve given me one before, why don’t you link to it now?

36

So as to dissuade bad practice.

37

S’okay, anybody reading this thread will see you making unsupported claims and refusing to give a cite.

The reasons for your refusal to cite your claims do not matter, you are refusing to prove your contentions.

In GD, that means you automatically lose.

38

No.

I’m not interested in re-opening settled arguments.

Nietzsche and I are focused on the question concerning Saddam Hussein and that is where the focus remains.

39

Oh, I see, this is Great Debates, and you are claiming that you somehow have a ‘settled argument’, without presenting facts, at all.

You may want to focus on whatever you want, I am choosing to focus on the spurious charges that you have made. You are refusing to support your claims and claiming they are somehow beyond debate and ‘settled’.

Again, anybody reading this thread will see quite clearly what’s going on.

Oh, and, by the way:

This is the results of a search for the terms ‘zionist’ and ‘Iraq’ conducted under your username. There are two hits. Two. One of which is in this thread. Not six or seven. And the other one isn’t in response to me. Just in case you’re curious, there are precisely zero hits for ‘zionism’ and ‘Iraq’ under your user name. I would also point out that neither post contains a cite.

So, care to prove either contention? A) That there were ‘zionist influences’ in the choice of Iraq or B) that you’ve answered me /proven those charges even one single time?

40

The question is whether Finnagain is a bad faith debater. That is, making an inquiry for a purpose other than genuine inquiry into the matter.

Particularly, is Finnagain asking me a question that; he has asked me earlier; had satisfactorily answered, including citations; and had no objection to at the time.

The answer is Yes.

Why Finnagain should engage in bad faith questioning is a matter for anyone’'s speculation. Perhaps the subject of discussion provides a clue?

Now Finnagain care to deny any of the above? Or do you mind if we continue our discussion of the present and interesting question concerning Saddam Hussein?