If only. Unfortunately it is more likely that the troglodyte Bush will be returned with an increased majority next time.
Hang on, what am I saying, with an increased majority? I mean with a majority.
The whole WMD thing was a crock anyway. The US has WMD, so does the UK, as does France, India, Pakistan, China and probably some others that slip my mind – so who’s next on the invasion list? The cheese-eating surrender-monkeys?
If there was a legitimate excuse, I mean reason, to invade, it was that Iraq was in breach of UN sanctions, but then that would be a UN call, and properly should have been policed by the UN.
Bush is a fuck, a lying fuck, a lying, scheming fuck, a lying, scheming, unelected fuck.
So your entire argument is “So have you stopped beating your wife?”?
SPOOFE, what you’re leaving out is, you know, the lies that the United States made up in order to justify the war. Post-hoc rationalizations - even crazy ones like yours, which isn’t even TRUE, since Iraq was cooperating to at least some extent with inspectors - don’t cut it. Why the lies and deception?
There just isn’t any ethical or moral basis for starting a war and slaying innocent people on the basis of your non-argument. If you want to start a war, it’s your job to provide the evidence justifying it.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you’re doing in Iraq. I really think you’re making life better for the people over there and by extension, making life a little safer for us over here. Whatever we think about the folks who sent you over there, I think we all pretty much agree that you guys are freaking amazing.
I supported this war, but I know in my heart of hearts that I wouldn’t have the guts to do what you’re doing and put my ass on the line like you are. Many times watching TV I’ve heard about your comrades making the ultimate sacrifice and I felt unbelievable pangs of guilt. If people call me a chickenhawk, I’d have a hard time arguing.
BTW, what are some things us civilians can do in the USA to make things better for you (food, letters, porno mags )?
I’m not sure that the world is a safer place. I’m not even sure what arguments could be made to support such a view – was Saddam ever a real threat to the US?
Are there terrorists around the world saying, Fuck! They showed 'em good in Iraq (even though the “links” to terrorism weren’t clear-cut at all), better just give in now, take up stamp-collecting, or something
?
Great Unwashed, frankly, I’m not sure if the world is safer or not, either. It’s the nature of the beast we’re fighting to never really know for sure whether or not we’re “winning.” Time will tell, I guess.
As far as what the terrorists are thinking, they at least know that if they hit us, we’re going to be absolutely ferocious in our response, which is different than our previous responses from the time the Marine barracks were hit in Beirut in 1983 until Sept. 10, 2001. Maybe they think we’re a little crazy - I’m OK with that.
And if you told me on Sept. 12, 2001 that as of June 7, 2003, there would be no more major international acts of terrorism committed on American soil (or on our allies’ soil), I would have been amazed and very pleased.
I’ve been in going on 14 years now, Jesus I can’t believe it’s been that long sometimes.
If you know someone here (and have an address for them) the items I think the soldiers would most enjoy are ‘comfort’ foods. Believe it or not junk food kind of stuff seems to be highly in demand. Twinkies and hostess cupcakes and ANYTHING home made are always popular. Best thing to do maybe is write someone and ask what they might need. Some places I know are considering starting school supply drives for the kids here, paper, pencils, ect.
Porn is illegal in my unit, odd I know, host nation sensitivities I guess. But a lot of the guys here get Maxim and mags like that in the mail. I’ve seen more copies of penthouse letters in paperback then I could have ever imagined existed.
I’m stationed up north with the 173d Airborne Brigade (in Kirkuk). We have it much better then the boys down in Baghdad. I’ve talked to a lot of the reporters and they all say Baghdad is still a bad mess.
I won’t be online much in the next 3 to 5 days but I can fill you in on anything you might be curious about when I get back.
Take care all and again, thank you for the kind words
WMD’s were never the only reason to go to war…just the most steadily harped-upon by war opponents. This is not to say that WMD’s will never be found, but the idea that they were the only reason Saddam needed to be removed is frankly blind.
Remember that we invaded not because we were absolutely sure he had WMD’s, but that 1) he made it seem highly likely, given his history of defying UN inspectors and shooting at patrol planes, that he was hiding something, 2) he was in 12-year violation of UNSC resolutions, and 3) he had a confirmed history of actually using WMD’s.
The combination of 1+2+3 made military action inevitable.
Add to this the oil angle (yes, of course it’s there.) While Iraq produced (and produces) a relatively small output of oil, their reserves are enormous, and make no mistake…everyone benefits from freeing the Iraqi oil fields. I’ve said it before: if you really, really, really tried, you might find a reason to put petroleum in the second spot for “most important natural resource in the world,” but more than likely, it would end up way out in the lead. I wish we’d started weaning ourselves away from it 30 years ago, but we didn’t, and now we HAVE to make sure that world petroleum reserves are stable.
And while we’re at it, why do you really think the European Mainland core countries opposed us? Was it because of a greater sense of humanity? Concern for the Iraqi commoner? Please. I submit to you that if this were the case, Europe (France and Russia, actually…haven’t I heard those names in a “humanitarian” context recently?) wouldn’t have almost single-handedly armed Saddam over the last 20 years, and that they WOULD have supported enforcing UN resolutions years ago, and backed us up against a brutal military dictator this time (you know, like the UN was supposed to do from the start.)
So why did they oppose us? Simple. Power. France and Germany were making a big play on the world stage to counter US power. They wanted very much for the history books to read “the rise of the EU as a world superpower is thought by most historians to date from the time that the main EU powers, France and Germany, successfully defied the world’s lone superpower at the time, the United States.” If they could strangle the US through the UN by making us less of a player, they had a perfect way to shape world policy for years. Russia joined because they’re relatively poor, and would love to be aligned with a hyper-rich and powerful (and geographically adjacent) Europe.
Why do you think Chirac blatantly threatened the Eastern Bloc countries after they aligned themselved in principle with the US?
The way I see it is that Iraq has been a bone of contention between the US and Europe for years, and a fulcrum on which Europe was trying to leverage its own international goals. We just decided to remove the fulcrum…years after it should have been removed in the first place, after countless people had lost their lives under a brutal dictator, after the entire region had been destabilized by his actions, and after he’d firmly entrenched himself as a role-model for world-defying despots…
Who knows how many millions of lives we’ve saved?
I won’t pretend that our reasons were entirely altruistic. But you shouldn’t pretend that this outcome wasn’t absolutely inevitable.
Revisionist history, indeed. Come now, Ogre, you certainly know better than that.
“I have said throughout and I just repeat to you, I have absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And rather than speculating, let’s just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the scientists.” –Tony Blair, May 29
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” –George Bush, 18 March, 2003
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.” –Dick Cheney, August 28, 2002
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” –George Bush, September 12, 2002
But, I will give you this:
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” Paul Wolfowitz
I personally take that as an insult, not an explanation. They played on the gullibility of the American people, deliberately confused al-Qaeda and Hussein in the minds of the American and British publics, and lied their asses off to sell us a bullshit war that they wanted for reasons beyond the immediate defense of the United States. You can argue that it was a strategic step in part of an overall plan, but they still badged a Chevy as a Rolls Royce, and you know that, Ogre.
Ah, Sofa King. I realize that politicians exaggerate. It just doesn’t offend me in this case. All the quotes you provided tell us all what we knew already, that WMD’s were used as a reason to go to war. What they don’t say is that it wasn’t the only reason. And they never said that. And yet, people harp on WMD’s as if that issue were the end-all, be-all.
And as far as I’m concerned, the balance of reasons to go to war far outweighed the reasons not to. Apparently from your characterization of this as a “bullshit war,” you already had your mind made up. That’s fine. There are plenty of principled reasons to have been against it, but it is, and always has been, naive to think that just because WMD’s are what everyone was harping on most, that it was the only reason.
I see a variety of reasons that we went to war, and they added up to something as inevitable as the tides. Europe essentially dared us to defy them, using a smokescreen of humanitarian conscience, thinking that we couldn’t possibly easily dislodge Hussein AND hold down civilian casualties AND invade his urban centers. Well, we did it. And the people of Iraq will endup being better off for it, the oil supplies are stabilized, and already, the other potential enemy states in the region are sitting up and listening.
In part because Bush et al. made such a fucking noise about WMDs. SUCH a fucking noise. You’d think they were all loaded and pointed at the US, they raised such hell about them. There were other reasons, to be sure, but I remember hearing about two thing: Saddam is evil (because of how his people live and his WMDs) and the WMDs need to be accounted for/destroyed/let go etc.
And making the mistake many of us made last presidential election: thinking Bush, as a “moral Christian” couldn’t possibly be the polar opposite. They dared Bush to have a conscience and wait just a little bit longer before shooting a dead bird with a machine gun.
They were wrong just as we were wrong. Hopefully that will be borne out next election and Bush will go away for a long, long time.
As Iampunha pointed out, they were the reason that was touted the loudest. They were the main focus of Colin Powell’s speach to the UN. They were the sole focus of both Blair’s dossiers. Hence they were the main reason. Sofa King has provided proof.
Now it is coming to light that the main reason for going to war was a dubious construction of lies, obfuscation and out and out bullshit. Please stop fucking that flaming strawman long enough to realise that no-one is saying that WMD’s were the only reason to go to war and realise that the people still, in spite of this, have a right to be angry about being lied to and deceived.
That may make it “highly likely” in your minds but for those of us who still believe in the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” your circumstantial rationalisation does little to tip the balance in our minds. We wanted more proof. In fact, the US Government recognised this and provided us with a veritable mountain of evidence. Now, however, it is being exposed as bullshit and lies and we are angry. Bush and his rabid, warmongering, neo-con junta tried to play us all for fools.
Aw, fuck that shit. Plenty of countries are in clear violation of the UNSC’s resolutions and have been for far, far longer than Saddam Hussein ever was. Proof?
Besides, according to the pro-war pundits both here (Britain) and the States the UN is a flimsy, powerless little paper tiger anyway so why should Saddam Hussein have given a shit about their worthless resolutions anyway?
Yeah, 15 years ago in 1988! How you think that justifies the belief that it was “highly likely” he still had WMD’s in the run up to the invasion is beyond me. You can’t convict someone of a murder purely on the basis that he has committed murders in the past. You need more than that.
And at the same time set a precedent for any other country in the world to illegally declare war on any other country it feels like without consulting the United Nations and using whatever “evidence” they can trump up on the spur of the moment, regardless of its factual accuracy. I hope you’re happy.
Military action was only inevitable insofar as Bush had made up his mind that it was going to happen regardless. At no point in the run up to war did Saddam Hussein commit any action which would result in a need for a pre-emptive strike. Sure, Bush said it was vital that we disarm Saddam right. now. this. very. fucking. precise. instant. but since it now seems that Saddam never had any arms in the first place and the Administration was well aware of this Bush’s argument isn’t worth shit.
Especially America who now has more leverage over the import dependant Asian and European markets. Especially America which is in a prime position to utilise these resources to cement their economic hegemony. And especially American corporations who are, at the insistence of the administration, going to be spearheading the cleanup. Funny, that.
Not at the cost of invading sovereign nations, killing thousands of their citizens, doing the seemingly impossible and actually raising furious anti western hatred in the Middle East to even greater heights and leaving the country a bloody wasteland.
No. They were realpolitiking like their lives depended on it. Same as you. It was all about oil and business contracts.
America played a large part in Arming Saddam as well. During the '80s when they were precariously trying to achieve dual containment of Iraq & Iran they virtually threw arms, money and diplomatic support at Hussein. Since you seem to view these sort of actions as reason enough to condemn France’s moralistic posturing as hypocritical bullshit, are you big enough to admit that for all of Bush & Blair’s fine rhetoric (well, not quite so fine from Bush), neither premier gave a flying fuck about the Iraqi people either?
Oh bullshit! They opposed America because they wanted to protect their oil interests. Nothing more grandiose than that. If you have any actual citable evidence for your baseless conjecture I’d like to see it. Here’s a convincing analysis to support my view.
Your reasons were not in any way, shape or form altruistic. The moralistic, Johnny-come-lately handwringing the Administration engaged in was as hollow as that of the French.
Bush would have saved a great deal more lives if he’d decided to allocate one quintillionth of the US’s military budget (or for that matter the money he’s going to have to spend rebuilding Iraq) to clearing 3rd world debt.
He would also have saved a lot more lives had he decided to lift the sanctions which have so cruelly punished the Iraqi people for so many years while doing sweet fuck all to loosen Saddam’s grip on power.
That is, if saving lives is your concern.
But then he wouldn’t have been able to grab ahold of Iraq’s oil, would he?
And december’s sad attempt at starting his own topic in another forum after not having much luck in the Pit versions. Mods not fooled, OP was moved to the Pit for proper mocking:
Ogre: Well, let’s take the whole WMD issue out of the context of the larger issue of whether the war was justified. Suppose the Bush Administration, as many people believe, deliberately exaggerated their evidence on Iraq possession of WMDs. Again, taking this out of the larger context of the war, do you believe they should face consequences? Why or why not?
Even if this is true, we weren’t acting on bedrock-solid certainty. We acted on probabilities based on Hussein’s elusive, defiant behavior, his history of avoiding international resolutions, and his history of using WMD’s. Now there are three possibilities: 1) The WMD’s are still there in the desert somewhere, 2) they are long gone to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., or 3) they were never there.
Given that the whole thing was a calculated guess based on best available intelligence, I’m not sure we have enough information yet to call the emphasis on WMD’s a “lie.” Or, even if it was exaggerated, there were other perfectly justifiable reasons to go to war. Also, as such, I’m definitely not prepared to see Bush and Blair face international war crimes trials over an action which, after all, ended up saving possibly millions of Iraqi lives and went a long way toward stabilizing Iraq and a good deal of the surrounding region for the future.
I, for one, heard the WMD-talk, and immediately said to myself, “This is an advertising campaign. They’re talking about WMD’s because they’re scary. There are other valid reasons to go to war.”
There really ought to be a special punishment for any idiot that uses the oh-so-Jello-Biafra “junta” in reference to the US government.
Actually, we only set that precedent for ourselves…which is fine with me, since the UN itself is completely worthless.
As for the actual “precedent,” think on these names: Chechnya, Palestine, Cote D’Ivoire, then tell me how we set the precedent for “unilateral” action.
But very few of them were or are a power fulcrum between two vying world powers. Israel is as well, as are Iran and North Korea. It will be interesting to see how those turn out as well.
Actually, it was more like, “It’s been 12 years. We’re tired of waiting. There will be no other deadlines.”
Ah. So I suppose if I murder a few hundred people and manage to avoid the law for 15 years, I’m all set? No? Hmmm…back to the drawing board!
God, capitalism’s a beautiful thing.
Your typical raving hyperbole is ludicrous. Iraq Body Count’s numbers are highly questionable, given that they are based on Herold’s methodology - which has been refuted many times. Even if the number is true, however, it would still be less per day than Saddam has murdered over the last two decades. Plus, the civilians killed were not specifically targeted. Accidents are terrible, but they happen. Who was it that slaughtered the Marsh Arabs? The Kurds? Shi’ites?
I agree that we should be a lot more forgiving of 3rd World debt, but how do you propose that forgiving debt is going to displace military dictators?
Uh huh. So, the sanctions, which we didn’t even want to begin with, are our fault? And the Iraqi people starved while Saddam built palaces that were never even used? And that’s our fault?
Yes. As Lileks would put it, turn the following words over in your head until they make sense, which may well be never: “Children’s Mass Grave.”
are you accusing me of not caring about dead children? Obviously, when you have no arguement against the point, a general, obscene, vague accusation of inhumane thought against your opponent is the preferred attack. This is called a ‘straw man’. Unless, of course, you can find, amongst my 8000+ posts some reference to me not caring about mass killings of children. Have at it. Or you could admit your accusation is baseless, crude, idiotic and insulting.
Of course, I’ll not hold my breath for that admission.
