Because i am tired of being called a supporter of murder and terror by hypocrits. Fuck them and their self inflated lies. This war was as much about liberating the Iraqi people as it was about buying me a new pair of socks.
I didn’t make anything up.
He stated that the US was responsible for the looting. And any reasonable steps we could have taken in a war zone to prevent the looting, after the general breakdown of the existing police force, would have to be military in nature.
And could have been interpreted as causing unnecessary civilian casualties, and then the US is the bad guy. Again.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. As usual.
The Iraqi people.
Throw in the Kurds, Kuwait and the other neighbors of Iraq, and the Israeli victims of suicide bombers which Saddam rewarded if it helps.
Well sure, if you assume that the war on terror is morally unjustified, then actions in its furtherance are also unjustiifed.
But if it is, they are. IMO, it is and they are.
Actually, we don’t have to wait that long. We got a taste of it when the illegal missiles were discovered, and the chemical munitions shells.
People were tying themselves into knots trying to say that the missiles weren’t a serious enough violation to go to war over. I even heard it suggested that Saddam was justified in having the missiles, because he needed them to fight off the US when they invaded.
This sort of relates to Desmostylus’ thought that Saddam didn’t really have WMD, but wanted the world to think he did. The problem is that he didn’t have the right to do this.
One of the conditions of the cease-fire was that he disarm, and prove that he had done so. The fact that he refused to provide such proof, given his track record of invading Kuwait and threatening his other neighbors, in my view justifies the invasion by itself.
He agreed to give up the right to threaten, even if it was a bluff. The US and UK were, IMO, fully justified in calling his bluff.
Although I think WMD will be discovered. It may be six months or more, but we will find them, or evidence that they existed. Best option for the Left will be to claim dual use, or to say that Saddam destroyed them because he was getting ready to cooperate with the cease-fire agreement.
Uh huh.
Regards,
Shodan
The use of those ‘ample reasons’ to justify war on Iraq would have set very serious precedents indeed.
Those ‘ample reasons’ have actually been used by Russia several times, China and it’s occupation of Tibet, Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, there are others in this list of infamy.
Democracies are supposed to have specific reasons that involve clear, direct and imminent danger to themselves or vulnerable third parties, ‘ample reasons’ could include many things as is just way too nebulous.
Perhaps you cold be a bit more specific about those ‘ample reaons’ but I think you had better be prepared for a close examination of each and every one from posters better intellectually equipped than I.
I have a reasonable certainty what those ‘ample reasons’ will be, and a very good idea of what the counter arguments will entail.
This war was specifically about WMD, and links to Al-Qaeda were rapidly tagged on, and as time goes by it seems that other reasons, such as destruction of a despotic regime, liberation of opressed populations are being added to the list, all well after the event and all simply because the prime reason is taking longer than anticipated to emerge.
You make it sound as if this is a hypothetical. Hell, it’s already happening; the administation has already switched over to a War For Liberation line of bullshit, with a side helping of Distract Them With Tall Tales About Syria.
I’ve always been a skeptic, but the level of credulity and stupidity of people on this subject is actually starting to depress me; even I did not think such a large percentage of the population could be this comically gullible. People who just four frickin’ weeks ago were nodding their heads and saying “Yup, yup, this war’s about WMD, the evidence has to be kept secret, Nigerian uranium, that’s the ticket!” are now bobbing theie heads and saying “Yup, yup, the war was about `freeing’ the Iraqis, and the WMDs are all in Syria, and never mind the phony evidence.” I can’t believe intelligent people are falling for such lies and aren’t challenging the government at all, a government known to have lied outrageously so many times in the past.
People never learn, I guess. But I didn’t realize they were this… WILLING to be fooled.
they forgot to look under the couch!
RickJay, I share your dismay, but it is entirely understandable: nobody wants to believe thier country’s leaders are incompetent or mendacious. Its only human, hence understandable, hence forgiveable. They want to be able to stand and sing the national anthem before the ball game with a clear conscience. So do I. So, I suspect, do you.
When I was a younger fool, “studying for the gallows”, I cherished the thought that, worldwide, whenever the oppressed and the fearful heard the glad news “The Americans are coming!” their hearts were lifted, thier fears set aside, the Americans would set things right, the Americans, natural friend of the friendless, scourge of tyrants everywhere, who’s only wish was to break the chains of slavery anywhere, anytime.
Now, of course, I know that when they heard the Americans were coming, the friendless and oppressed usually cringed. America, born of revolution had become the champion of stability, order and a robust social Darwinism. Many times, in desperation, the friendless and oppressed would turn to the Soviets for help. Now there is an irony!
And we would pour money guns and lawyers onto any tin-pot dictator with a spiffy uniform and a set of aviators glasses, if he but declare himself firmly anti-Communist. Time and again, we looked the other way while these monsters squeezed the life’s blood from thier people, just so long as they knew what to kiss, and when.
So…it was an illusion. But it need not remain an illusion! Any citizen of the Unites States has ten times the power of a citizen of any other country, taken at random. It is in our hands, if we will it so, the future is ours.
I am the rebelllious son of a revolutionary country, I will not pledge allegiance to an Empire. “If this be treason, make the most of it.”
Errrr, I was wondering something…
What exactly does a weapon have to do to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction?
Make a “Really Big Explosion”?
Kill soldiers and/or civilians by the hundreds/thousands?
Maybe fry their lungs as opposed to dismembering and/or multilating them ?
Perhaps the definiton applies to weapons which kill indiscriminately long after they are delivered?
Would a radioactive residue fall into that category?
I still fail to see how a B52 or a couple thousand 2 ton bombs DON’T qualify. It would seem that they are designed for mass destruction and nothing else…
Could somebody please fill me in on the difference?
How is a radioactive residue spread out over hundreds of miles not a WMD?
Errrr, I was wondering something…
What exactly does a weapon have to do to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction?
Make a “Really Big Explosion”?
Kill soldiers and/or civilians by the hundreds/thousands?
Maybe fry their lungs as opposed to dismembering and/or multilating them ?
Perhaps the definiton applies to weapons which kill indiscriminately long after they are delivered?
Would a radioactive residue fall into that category?
I still fail to see how a B52 or a couple thousand 2 ton bombs DON’T qualify. It would seem that they are designed for mass destruction and nothing else…
Could somebody please fill me in on the difference?
How is a radioactive residue spread out over hundreds of miles not a WMD, whereas a poisonous gas IS??
Sorry for the double post guys. No edit/delete rights I see…
Good question, Rollie. As I understand it, a WMD is a vile, low and unethical weapon, like a nerve gas or a biological agent. As such, it is very different from a cluster bomb or nuetron weapon, which are moral and ethical. Shredding flesh with shrapnel is organic and acceptable, person who are killed by such means are thereby satisfied that they have met thier deaths by instruments that are in compliance with international law.
The distinction is entirely obvious, as in the distinction between a “freedom fighter” and a “terrorist”.
Well, seeing as elucidator has once again failed to live up to his user name, here’s the Geneva Protocol prohibiting use of chemical or bacteriological weapons
(http://www.zarc.com/english/chemical/genevaprotocol.html). Note that Iraq is a signatory.
More practically, and in keeping with the current reality, a WMD, while virtually useless for military purposes, is ideal for terrorists as it can be easily smuggled into large population centers and can cause immense devastation. Whether you feel that these weapons are any more ethical than bombs and guns is an interesting philosophical question; however wishing to control the manufacture and distribution of these substances is not an unreasonable goal.
Oh, I imagine Roland Saul’s comment about “radioactive residue” is referring to depleted uranium? If so, then it’s not particularly radioactive – if there is any danger from DU (and the jury is still out), it’s mostly from heavy metal poisoning. If the comment is about something like a dirty bomb – then yes, I think you could characterize that as a WMD, certainly by the useful definition of “something you wouldn’t want a terrorist setting off in your home city”.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” is simply an overly dramatic and non-descriptive name for the much more accurate and descriptive “NBC weapons” (NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). Which sounds better?
“We’re going in to remove their NBC weapons!”
“We’re going in to remove their Weapons of Mass Destruction!”
Nevermind that many of those “WMDs” cause significantly less destruction than conventional bombs. I don’t understand how you can class mustard gas and 9-megaton nuclear weapons in the same “destruction” category…
A neutron weapon, being a nuclear weapon, is a weapon of mass destruction, and I’ve never seen anyone claim otherwise. (It’s also, as near as I can tell, a totally imaginary weapon. I don’t think any army actually fields one.)
Rollie, “weapons of mass destruction” doesn’t really have any military meaning; it’s a shorthand way of saying “Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons.” In the Army, we called it NBC - Nuclear, Bio’, Chemical.
Chemical and biological weapons are illegal under established treaty; nuclear weapons are considered particularly dangerous and odious, for obvious reasons.
As to whether or not things like cluster bombs and such should be considered the same, it’s an interesting question, but I think most would agree chemical weapons and biological weapons are particuarly heinous. They serve less of a specific military function than they do the function of slaughtering civilians.
An interesting question, though, is why the U.S. chose not to go along with the rest of the civilized world in trying to ban land mines, a type of weapon that definitely threatens civilians to a disproportionate extent.
I must thank Finagle for his kindness in pointing out just one of my many failings, in not, by his lights, living up to my user name. I am happy to note that such failing is not his.
That done, I think its a fine topic as to whether WMD’s represent any real distinction in terms of thier humanity or ethical propriety. To my mind, its nothing more than a pretty conceit, that certain methods of slaughter are proper, and certain others somehow tainted. A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course, and noone can talk to a corpse. Of course.
Myself, I am not interested enough to open a thread, however…
elucidator said
That’s twicein the last month you’ve dissed Akron.
Just as soon as it’s summer up there in Nipples(July2-5), I’m gonna come up there an beat your ass. 
The point is, US policy for several administrations has brought us to where we are now. From the Shah’s father through Gulf War I we’ve made decisions that brought us to where we are now. It’s possible that the WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq before the war. I’ve heard several posters speculate on that. It could have been long ago.
Based on the terrorist training camp discoveries, it is possible that WMDs were given to terrorists long ago. I haven’t heard much discussion about the import or reliability of that particular discovery. Nor am I alleging that the Iraqi government gave them the agents. I only know that stories claimed that agents were found in a terror camp in northern Iraq. To be fair, found in an area Saddam did not control. Of course, that could just be well planned plausible deniability.
There is a tendency to assume that the war is over and WMDs don’t exist or won’t be used. Also, that Saddam is gone or no longer a threat. I’m just not sure about any of that. I try not to make unfounded dire predictions based on nothing but a lack of evidence. But, if there were weapons, and now there aren’t, they’ve been moved or are still hidden. Two is OK, one isn’t.
Ugh. I need to take some time off. Pick an intro sentence. I thought I deleted one…
By no means! Its only that it is clear that terrorism, bent on destroying the fabric of American life, must necessarily have Akron at the very top of thier list. Around here, there is considerable worry as to the fate of the Mall of America.
For similar reasons, I tremble for my home town, Waco, the Athens on the Brazos, home of the feared and dreaded Baylor Bears!
They really should be called weapons of mass casualties rather than destruction.
Of the three , nukes are the most destructive , with the exception of Neutron bombs ,and I am not even sure that they are even in the inventory any more.
Declan