That long run might have to get to the point where it wasnt your parents and brother that died because of it though, but instead your grand or great grand parents.
Teensy bit harder to not be ‘blinded’ when thats your personal situation.
Otara
… and so the goal-post shifting begins …
Given that Shias are the majority in Iraq, how could the Sunnis - Baathists or religious militants - somehow gain a majority of seats in the Iraqi parliament with the US’ help? As for Saudis being the ones who behead soldiers and make women wear burkhas, it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between the overbearing Saudi religious police and the overbearing Iranian religious police.
The UN security council is essentially run by 5 members–three out of the five members agreed to the no-fly zone. This no-fly zone was part of these countries response to being given the task of dealing with the situation in Iraq.
The man from the UN you claim condoned the actions(Hubert Vendrine) was not even a part of the UN until 2005, long after this had all taken place.
You then went on with multiple quotations from Bush, and followed up with several 'Facts" All of these might have been applicable if I had said, “Ever since the US got involved, the Middle East has been divinely blessed with our presence.” Yet thats cleary not what I had said. I never claimed that these sort of things do not occur in the Middle East nowadays–but ardently pointed out the fact that these type of activities were actively known of and funded by the Saddam regime. All you can come up with is that a couple American soldiers have been douchbags.
“There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government’s torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the “Black Room.”” This in no way means that they began torturing and raping people in the room–as horrifying as it may sound, we’re at war with people who hate us…and occasionly we capture some and question them for information…ooo not that! that would almost be like as if we were…at war or somthing! Now if any of our men are caught doing those sort of actions, their massacred on the evening news, and given a court martial and generally following…Jail time. Saddam on the other hand, openly encouraged this sort of behavior.
And I can undertand why you would be puzzeled by our assisting Iraq in the Regean years. Allow me too clear it up for you. I’m reminded of Winston Churchhill, on the eve of WWII, standing before parliment advocating an alliance with Communist Russia. He quite cleary mentioned that, even though he had been one of the most ardent opposers of Stalin at the time, an alliance was needed to check the growing power of Hitler. As we know now of course, parliment didn’t , (for the very reasons that you are opposed to our providing assistance to iraq in the regean years), which then gave Hitler time to secure an alliance with Stalin, and allow him to invade Poland.
You see, on the world scale, there are times when a country must choose the lesser of two evils for a greater good. Now I’m am not advocating the idea of the ends justify the means, but at that time we didn’t have a choice–an evil would have been done no matter what, and we then had to act accordingly. No doubt our actions in the Middle East were to secure our oil assests. Now if securing those assests required the toppling of a secure and stable Government, then I would agree with you–that would no doubt be wrong. But that clearly was not the case.
Now we have so many people out there chanting, “No blood for oil!” Yet I would be quite interested to see how many of those voices would still be chanting if gasoline went up 20 bucks a gallon.
“Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state. Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby.”–Now this clearly is wrong. If you perhaps feel the need to give some better evidence other then a random Lobbyist looking to make a name for himself, then please do. Until then, I’ll stick with seeing the build up of a stable Iraqi government as a good thing.
Something is either authorised by the UN or it isn’t. And the no-fly zones weren’t, which is why the UN chief called them illegal. And the “facts” I posted about Bush are just facts, no quotation marks needed. And we were assisting Saddam, a man we knew was a brutal tyrannical dictator, to fight a war against a country (Iran) which had had the temerity to overthrow a brutal dictator who we’d installed in place of a democratically-elected government who’d had the temerity to nationalise their own oilfields instead of letting us take their oil for less than tip money. Apart from giving the dictator Saddam massive military aid and WMD to start a war which killed millions we also shot down an Iranian civilian airliner and put the country under punitive sanctions which exist to this day. We’ve also constantly threatened them, we even have presidential candidates discussing nuking them and singing songs about bombing them. What were you saying about people being the greater evil again?
A 1988 DIA report suggesting that Iran, not Iraq, was responsible for the use of poison gas at Halabja. This report, and a subsequent Army War College study and book incorporating its argument, provide one single piece of evidentiary conjecture for placing responsibility on the Iranians: film and eyewitness reports of the dead at Halabja indicated that their mouths and extremities had turned blue, and such symptoms were consistent with exposure to blood agents using cyanide, which, it was argued, only the Iranians were known to use. None of the authors of these documents, the most notable of whom was Stephen Pelletiere, the senior CIA political analyst of Iraq during the Anfal campaign and later professor at the Army War College, had any expertise in medical and forensic sciences, and their speculation doesn’t stand up to minimal scrutiny. To begin, it is not true that Iran alone used blood agent weapons.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=487
If you google the DIA report and look hard enough you’ll eventually find it somewhere.
You again miss the idea completely. When the majority of the countries that run the UN agree to an action, it means it, at least at that time, the idea was accepted as a proper course of action.
And, fortunately for my fingers, my first answer about “people being the greater evil” will more then suffice the question you posed in your last sentence. The problem you are having, of which so many nowadays seems to have, is that of taking the…say…twenty percent of “bad” things that happen to and from our country, and then completely single them out so it seems that the bad things that happen are the only things that happen. I’m enjoy being able to say I’m not that pessimistic.
We have in the long run overthrown the Hussein regime and established democracy in Iraq. I don’t think most Iraqis would want Saddam Hussein back in power now. Plus the majority of Iraq’s population from a pragmatic position has gained: both Shias and Kurds have more political power than before.
As per usual, you are arguing that the rose tinted glass is half full when it hasn’t been established that the glass even exists.
We’ve established a weak, unstable regime of collaborators that’s not likely to last once we are gone. And killed a lot of people and laid waste to the country doing it. And destroyed Iraqi secularism and massively set back womens’ rights, although you probably consider both good things.
Why not? They were better off, especially women and secularists. homosexuals too. And the population in general was safer and better off materially.
Half the population is female, and much worse off than it was. Although I realize from your posts elsewhere that you probably consider the subjugation of Iraqi women a benefit not a problem.
Actually, metaphors have actually been proven to not exist…weird huh.
I’m not missing anything at all, never mind completely. If a UN resolution isn’t agreed by the UNSC then it fails. And the no-fly xones aren’t authorised in any UN resolution which is why the UN chief rightly pointed out that the no-fly zones were illegal and why your claim that “when the majority of the countries that run the UN agree to an action, it means it, at least at that time, the idea was accepted as a proper course of action” is nonsense as neither the majority of UN countries nor the UNSC ever agreed to the no-fly zones. That’s an actual historical fact.
And again, when you look at the historical record of relations between America and Iran, which country is the greater evil? And if you’re going to say Iran, please explain in your own words why you believe this to be the case.
Your posts are as usual utter rubbish. I do support women’s rights, I do not support their rights to an abortion but nor do I support anyone’s right to have an abortion. And immediatly there has been violence and hardship but in the long run Iraq may end up better.
With Iran wanting to exterminate an entire race for no apparent reason, I think I’ll put my bets on them.
Iraq **may **end up better?
Is that the level of sophistry that you Black Knights are reduced to now?
What we really want here is a time machine and to put CLM into a small interview room with their middle aged self. Then proscribe both a restorative dose of CLM’s own medicine. Though that probably would run foul of the “cruel and unusual” provisions.
You’ve conceded the argument over the no-fly zones, excellent. Now to the point you’re making here, which is also incorrect btw.
Iran don’t want to exterminate anybody. Their leaders have said many times that they’ll never attack anybody else unless they’re attacked first.
What you’re referring to is this :
http://www.jewcy.com/post/sidebar_did_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_call_israel_be_wiped_map
but you’ve got to remember that Ahmedinejad isn’t Iran’s leader, the clerics are. He runs the country but the clerics rule the nation, including the armed forces. Ahmadinejad is like the mayor of Iran. And the clerics have said repeatedly that they’ll never attack anybody else unless they’re attacked first. Try again.
More to the point, just look at our respective body counts if you are going to compare us and them. Ahmedinejad and others might talk about destroying nations; but we, not them are the ones who actually do it. I’d rather be an Israeli and targeted by rhetoric or the occasional terrorist, than Iraqi and living in a devastated land. Or dead.
It already is improving but like Rome it won’t be built in a day. Plus Joe Biden has been claiming credit for victory in Iraq. :dubious:
Not long after the end of WW II, most of Germany was free, prosperous and democratic. Does that mean they won the war? No. The answer to OP is that even if Iraq pumps two billion barrels next year, the War in Iraq will be regarded as perhaps GWB’s biggest mistake. And that was an Adminstration with many big mistakes.
Anyway, to address the question, one first needs to ask: what was the objective of the war? AFAIK, there’s never been a clear consistent answer to that even from those who supported the War. (Henry Kissinger, GWB’s mentor, supported the war in order to “humilate radical Islam.” Other Bushists have admitted their public and private reasons were different.)
There’s a saying in journalism “Dog Bites Man (not news), Man Bites Dog (news).” In other words, consider posting if you happen upon a GWB quote which is intelligent or correct.
Not true. Back your position with a cite. And no - the wing-nut interpretation of the ‘map’ speech doesn’t count. Iran has not and never has advocated the extermination of the Jewish people.