posted
Well it's hardly the time now to debate the reasons for going to war with Iraq now that the United States and the United Kingdom are engaged in a military occupation of that country. The evidence was presented months ago, and the Congress of the United States voted George Bush war making powers and the British Parliament did the same for Tony Blair. Deadly military force was used to overthrow the government of Iraq and their army has surrendered.
It's too late now to argue the case for war, the war has already happened. United States and United Kingdom military forces are stuck in a military occupation/peace-keeping role in Iraq until a new government is elected and this government can defend itself from internal and external opposition.
If the reasons for, or justifications of, the war prove to be invalid or incorrect, what sort of remedy should be applied? Should Saddam Hussein and the surviving Bath party members be restored as the government of Iraq? I don't think anyone thinks that is a good idea.
Regarding the case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It is a matter of historical fact that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. The government of Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated its willingness to use chemical weapons in the battlefield, as it did against Iranian army forces in the Iran-Iraq war, and against Kurds in northern Iraq.
Should the United States and the United Kingdom have waited until the government of the Iraq had WMD deployed in the field before declaring war? If Saddam Hussein did not have viable WMD, he would have soon acquired them. Effort was certainly being expended to their development and deployment.
Regarding the argument that the Iraq war was motivated by oil, what other reason do you require? The economies of Europe, Japan, and the United States require relatively cheap crude oil from the Middle East. If energy prices would have risen, or the supply of crude oil from the Middle East had been disrupted, the current recession would have deepened and our current economic woes would be worse than they are now.
However the events play themselves out in the next couple of months or years, George Bush and Tony Blair should be commended for the public service they have preformed for the world by removing a thugish dictator and his brutal regime. The reasons aren't important, what is important is that needed action was taken. Economic sanctions were clearly not working and only resulted in the death and suffering of innocent Iraqis. How many more decades of economic sanctions against Iraq would have passed, and how many more Iraqis would have died, to allow for a diplomatic solution?
Further, it is intolerable to a nation to have foreign powers enforce a "no-fly zone" over the majority of its territory. Iraq challenged this "no-fly zone" every chance they had to wear down the resolve of the United States and other coalition air forces. The Hussein regime was expecting the coalition air forces to grow tired of enforcing this "no-fly zone" and leave Iraqi air space.
How many more decades was the United States and the United Kingdom expected to fly sorties and maintain air power in the region to enforce the "no-fly zone"?
Again, I feel that the right decision was finally made and needed action was finally taken.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
the other reasons Bush & Co. didn't verbalize until AFTER the invasion
No, they were there, you just weren't paying attention.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was going to post something about how no WMD have been found, and how long pro-war supporters were going to give Bush to find them. And I was also going to say that if this war was not about oil or vengeance, but about evil dictators, why was something not being done about those in Liberia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea. But, since this thread is about the death of Uday and Qusay, I don't want to turn it into another war debate thread.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You can sue me later.
The evidence was presented months ago...
...and yet, after turning Iraq upside down and inside out for over FOUR MONTHS, not a trace of it has been recovered. Which means that said WMDs are either INCREDIBLY well hidden, or you're chasing geese. Wild ones. With goslings.
It's too late now to argue the case for war, the war has already happened. United States and United Kingdom military forces are stuck in a military occupation/peace-keeping role in Iraq until a new government is elected and this government can defend itself from internal and external opposition.
The US and the UK knowingly chose to commit their forces, not just to the war, but also to Iraq's reconstruction. THEY are responsible for tearing it down, and THEY have the obligation to help the country back on its feet. Actions have CONSEQUENCES.
If the reasons for, or justifications of, the war prove to be invalid or incorrect, what sort of remedy should be applied? Should Saddam Hussein and the surviving Bath party members be restored as the government of Iraq? I don't think anyone thinks that is a good idea.
No, but Bush should impeached for LYING and beguiling his countrymen, as should Blair. If Clinton gets the shaft for something as trivial as screwing his secretary, then, proportionally, Bush should be incarcerated for life.
It is a matter of historical fact that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
The ones that came to a grinding HALT in '98 and have not been restarted since? Active programs leave traces too. You can't build an entire ABC infrastructure and then cloak it, you know.
The government of Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated its willingness to use chemical weapons in the battlefield, as it did against Iranian army forces in the Iran-Iraq war, and against Kurds in northern Iraq.
Actually, it was ENCOURAGED to do so by certain American parties which shall remain nameless here, but in any event, that willingness must have suddenly slackened during the invasion because even Fox did not report use of chemical weapons. Hmm.
Should the United States and the United Kingdom have waited until the government of the Iraq had WMD deployed in the field before declaring war?
Like the degree of patience they have shown Korea, which has well-nigh put the damn things on the fucking market?
If Saddam Hussein did not have viable WMD, he would have soon acquired them. Effort was certainly being expended to their development and deployment.
Probably, but again, the situation in Korea merits URGENT attention, yet isn't given nearly as much as the "crisis" in Iraq, so...
Regarding the argument that the Iraq war was motivated by oil, what other reason do you require? The economies of Europe, Japan, and the United States require relatively cheap crude oil from the Middle East. If energy prices would have risen, or the supply of crude oil from the Middle East had been disrupted, the current recession would have deepened and our current economic woes would be worse than they are now.
Oh, so in other words, we're allowed to trample over and exploit sovereign states whenever our own economy's in the gutter? Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I've always wanted to hear from Rob, though he's smart enough not to admit it in public.
However the events play themselves out in the next couple of months or years, George Bush and Tony Blair should be commended for the public service they have preformed for the world by removing a thugish dictator and his brutal regime.
Should they also be commended for LYING, and for NOT making humanitarian conditions their primary concern (which would have sold the war on a LOT more people, incidentally)? Of course, there are about FIFTY other nations I can name of the top of my head where even MORE appaling conditions exist, but hey...
The reasons aren't important...
I see. Well, if they aren't important, I'll just trespass, loot and pillage YOUR land and claim I'm doing it for my personal protection.
Economic sanctions were clearly not working and only resulted in the death and suffering of innocent Iraqis. How many more decades of economic sanctions against Iraq would have passed, and how many more Iraqis would have died, to allow for a diplomatic solution?
Oh, I agree. Those sanctions should never have been imposed in the first place.
Further, it is intolerable to a nation to have foreign powers enforce a "no-fly zone" over the majority of its territory.
Uhm, yes. That's why Iraq challenged the zones.
[ July 23, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Oh, I agree. Those sanctions should never have been imposed in the first place.
Oh, goody, the truth comes out... Cartman's a 'no sanctions' guy.
This is good. For me, I mean. Because there's hardly a less defensible position out there.
quote:The ones that came to a grinding HALT in '98
OOH, BIG cite needed for that one.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Actually, I'm a "you should have finished the job in '91 when you had legitimate reasons" guy.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Oh, I agree. Those sanctions should never have been imposed in the first place.
Oh, goody, the truth comes out... Cartman's a 'no sanctions' guy.
This is good. For me, I mean. Because there's hardly a less defensible position out there.
quote:The ones that came to a grinding HALT in '98
OOH, BIG cite needed for that one.
I think the burden of proof is on the president. I don't object to the war anymore, all the mass graves justify it, but if Bush expects to be reelected, they had better find something. WMD were not the only reason for going, b ut they were the main reason presented to both the American public, and the Brittish, so they need to find something more then empty trailers.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: Actually, I'm a "you should have finished the job in '91 when you had legitimate reasons" guy.
That's weird. So am I.
But let's lay the blame for that where it belongs: the need to keep the "coalition" together. Too many of our "allies" objected to the idea of removing Hussein to allow us to make that a goal.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sue you, for voicing your democratic right to voice your uninformed opinion? Whatever for.
First off, the argument that the coalition should have "...finished the job in '91 when you had legitimate reasons" is moot. The George HW Bush administration chose not to overthrow the government of Iraq, and for good reason. The '91 Gulf War had a coalition military force composed of Western and Arab countries. The Arabs supported the mission of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait, they DID NOT support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi goverment. If the mission had changed to overthrowing the Iraqi government, Arab countries would have withdrawn their support and the coaltion would have lost its "legitimacy".
quote:The US and the UK knowingly chose to commit their forces, not just to the war, but also to Iraq's reconstruction. THEY are responsible for tearing it down, and THEY have the obligation to help the country back on its feet. Actions have consequences
Most certainly. The United States and the United Kingdom must commit the necessary manpower and resources to see this through to the end. I haven't seen evidence that the United States or the United Kingdom intends to pull out their forces until a new Iraqi government is put into place that is capable of defending itself. Also, the United States and United Kingdom, as far as I know, intend to repair the infrastructure that was destroyed during the war. But its difficult to start reconstruction efforts if the army is still fighting resistance cells. You don't want to have construction crews risking serious injury or death from guerilla fighters as they are trying to rebuild bridges, roads, and other infrastructure.
quote:No, but Bush should impeached for LYING and beguiling his countrymen, as should Blair. If Clinton gets the shaft for something as trivial as screwing his secretary, then, proportionally, Bush should be incarcerated for life.
Bush won't be impeached. Hell will freeze over first. Congress is too spineless and gutless to appear weak on the "War on Terror" as it has been called in the press. Those who objected to, or questioned, the administration's case when it was first presented to the United Nations were ridiculed by the administration and opinion leaders, at best as uninformed or at worst stooges of the "outlaw" regime of Saddam Hussein. The ultra-right wing conservative fat-head Pat Buchanan even stated on television that anti-Iraq war protestors should be charged with treason against the United States governmnet because they gave, as he put it, "aid and comfort to the enemy."
Congress people are trying to protect their own skins and want to stay in power. They aren't going to be stupid enough to open their mouths and object when the entire nation's momentum is moving towards war. Who wants to be singled out as the person labeled the "anti-American Saddam Hussein stooge" or the person who isn't concerned with the security and well-being of the United States?
Plus, after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, United States-citizens have an unreasonably high fear of future terrorist attacks. The fear level is so high that they will support any and all military actions that are designed to ensure the safety of United States citizens and their property, however weak the evidence might be. They give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt if they feel that military action will prevent a repeat of the events of September 11, 2001.
Also, there are hawkish elements in the United States that demand that blood be spilt for the terrorist attacks on United States soil.
Regarding the "LYING and beguiling his countrymen", President George HW Bush made the case for war with Iraq in 1990 by stating that "Saddam Hussein is the greatest threat to world peace since Adolph Hitler." Further, Kuwaiti citizen's testimony before Congress stating that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators and left them to die in Kuwait City have been proved to be false. But no one called for the impeachment of President George HW Bush for his exagerated claims when the war was over.
Remember too that President Bill Clinton had an Impeachment Trial in the Senate, but was not convicted or "impeached". By the way it was oral sex with a White House intern, not his secretary, and the charges stemmed from lying under oath when giving testimony in a court case, not for having an affair. Clinton was disbarred for actions, and this was considered sufficient punishment.
George W Bush was never under oath to provide sworn testimony before Congress or the citizens of the United States. Further, under the terms of his oath of office, he is obliged to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In his defense, George W could say that he presented the facts as he knew them from intelligence sources at the time he went to Congress and the people of the United States to make his case for war. George W did not violate his oath of office. If he did knowlingly lie to Congress, he is unethical, but nothing he did was illegal.
To prove how gutless the international community is, the International War Crimes Tribunal in the The Hague, Netherlands publicly issued a statement saying that the case for war with Iraq was weak, and despite the threatened veto by France of any Security Council resolution for armed force against Iraq, it would not prosecute the United States or the United Kingdom for war crimes against Iraq.
quote:The ones that came to a grinding HALT in '98 and have not been restarted since? Active programs leave traces too. You can't build an entire ABC infrastructure and then cloak it, you know.
This very issue is still under investigation and the search for physical evidence is still ongoing. No one has stated Iraq to be WMD free.
quote:Like the degree of patience they have shown Korea, which has well-nigh put the damn things on the fucking market?
I think its only a matter of time before war is declared on North Korea and Iran. I don't know which country the United States government will declare war on first, but I believe it will occur soon. George W has set the expectation with the citizens of the United States that the war on terror will be an international war that will last for several years and the two nations are part of the "Axis of Evil" George W mentioned in his speech.
Ex-CIA director James Woolsey has said that the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.
quote:Actually, it was ENCOURAGED to do so by certain American parties which shall remain nameless here, but in any event, that willingness must have suddenly slackened during the invasion because even Fox did not report use of chemical weapons. Hmm.
Where is your evidence? Which American parties encouraged the use of chemical weapons? Are you saying that by declaring war on Iraq, the United State encouraged the use of chemical weapons?
It is publicly stated policy of the United States government to retaliate against biological, chemical, or nuclear attack on its forces with nuclear weapons. Perhaps the Iraqi did not want to escalate hostilities because it did not want to have a nuclear war on its soil. The government's only hope for victory was to wear down United States and United Kingdom forces in a conventional war.
quote:Oh, so in other words, we're allowed to trample over and exploit sovereign states whenever our own economy's in the gutter? Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I've always wanted to hear from Rob, though he's smart enough not to admit it in public.
History books are full of wars that are basically fights over who has the right to exploit natural resources. To give themselves legitamacy, the parties will often wrap themselves in the rules of international law and claim that their position is justified or right.
Sovereign states remain sovereign if they can muster enough deadly force to ensure the integrity of their borders and repel potential invading armies. Or they enter into political alliances with other nations for this purpose.
Legitimate governments are those governments that can ensure their survival through the use of dealy force, or have entered into alliances with other powers who are willing to use deadly force for this purpose.
International law is also written and enforced by the most powerful nations. International law means nothing if nations are unwilling to use deadly force when the need arises to enforce them.
Iraq through its actions of challenging the "no- fly zone" and its expulsion of United Nations weapons inspectors violated the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Use of military force was justified under previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions. If France had not threatened the veto, Iraq would have been found in material breach. The WMD case needn't have been made as justification for war with Iraq.
I must say as well that as an indirect recipient of the benefits of United States imperialism, you should be a little more grateful. Without relatively cheap energy, including oil, the society in the Western-style democracies would collapse because their transportation infrastructure, and economies, are petroleum-based. Further, I must also say that your liberalism and your sense of right and wrong is the product of the comfortable lifestyle you lead in which your basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are met. People have infinite wants, but there are only finite resources in the world.
In the case of oil, the United States consumes a quarter of the world's total output, but represents only 5% of the world's population.
Unfair or not, your standard of living is high because the standard of living of others throughout the world is lower.
quote:Should they also be commended for LYING, and for NOT making humanitarian conditions their primary concern (which would have sold the war on a LOT more people, incidentally)? Of course, there are about FIFTY other nations I can name of the top of my head where even MORE appaling conditions exist, but hey...
Look how well the "humanitarian conditions" argument worked in trying to get the United States to commit, and maintain, forces in Somalia and the Balkans. The United States pulled out of Somalia and United States participation in IFOR is still under criticism. Further, look how successful George W is in rallying the support of the American people for a peacekeeping mission in Liberia. Not to mention the efforts of Secretary General Kofi Annan to get United States participation in an international peacekeepting force to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to get the support of the American people for these missions unless its clear that United States interests are at stake. As you said, there are at least 50 places in the world where the humanitarian conditions are appalling. Its a tough sell in Congress and to the American people to sacrifice American lives, and spend American tax dollars, to cure all the world's ills and injustices. The United States has to chose its commitments carefully because it has finite military and monetary resources.
quote:I see. Well, if they aren't important, I'll just trespass, loot and pillage YOUR land and claim I'm doing it for my personal protection.
Iraq posed a current and future threat to the security of the United States and its interests, as well as those of the United Kingdom, even without its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
As the world's remaining super power, the United States maintains a strong military and continues to spend money to maintain this strong fighting force so that it can support its interests across the globe. It is also the reason it spends billions to develop the most modern equipment and weapons systems in the world. To quote the character Henry II from the play the Lion in Winter:
"It has my troops all over it, that makes it mine!"
The establishment of the "no-fly zones" and economic sanctions were conditions of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Iraq's active challenge of the "no-fly zones", was a breach of this agreement. At this point, the United States and members of the coalition would have been perfectly justified in resuming the war with Iraq and overthrowing Suddam Hussein and the ruling Bath party.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
quote: In his defense, George W could say that he presented the facts as he knew them from intelligence sources at the time he went to Congress and the people of the United States to make his case for war. George W did not violate his oath of office. If he did knowlingly lie to Congress, he is unethical, but nothing he did was illegal.
Ah. So the State of the Union is not a speech meant to convey FACTS. The President, you say, can make false statements in his speech without fear of legal retribution.
quote: This very issue is still under investigation and the search for physical evidence is still ongoing. No one has stated Iraq to be WMD free.
Please. Where are they hidden? In some guy's closet? In a house? Buried deep underground, where no one will be able to get to it for many more months?
quote: I think its only a matter of time before war is declared on North Korea and Iran. I don't know which country the United States government will declare war on first, but I believe it will occur soon. George W has set the expectation with the citizens of the United States that the war on terror will be an international war that will last for several years and the two nations are part of the "Axis of Evil" George W mentioned in his speech.
No doubt people like you will support him. Even if North Korea nukes Los Angeles, or maybe Japan, or maybe South Korea. And kills thousands of American soldiers. And, in the case of Iran--if invading Iraq hasn't made the Muslim world angry, attacking Iran certainly will. Goodbye, Mideast peace, hello new Bin Ladens.
quote: Iraq through its actions of challenging the "no- fly zone" and its expulsion of United Nations weapons inspectors violated the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Use of military force was justified under previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions. If France had not threatened the veto, Iraq would have been found in material breach. The WMD case needn't have been made as justification for war with Iraq.
If I were a leader of a sovereign nation, I would challenge a flight restriction over my borders, wouldn't you? Granted, it was probably a good idea to put up no-fly zones, but nonetheless... And, Iraq never expelled weapons inspectors. It kicked out Americans which were SPYING on Iraq and pretending to be inspectors. A legitimate excuse. And in 1998, the inspectors were asked to leave by the American government because a barrage of cruise missiles was about to come there way.
quote: Further, look how successful George W is in rallying the support of the American people for a peacekeeping mission in Liberia
Fine. When's he going to send the troops over? Once the death toll tops 3,000? Taylor's stubborn; if he wants him to leave, send over the troops, and if Taylor doesn't go, they'll MAKE him.
posted
Remember too that President Bill Clinton had an Impeachment Trial in the Senate, but was not convicted or "impeached".
Actually, he was impeached. The House impeached him, then the Senate tried him.
Where are they hidden? In some guy's closet? In a house? Buried deep underground, where no one will be able to get to it for many more months?
Why not?
No doubt people like you will support him. Even if North Korea nukes Los Angeles, or maybe Japan, or maybe South Korea. And kills thousands of American soldiers.
So... what, you're proposing we don't invade because they threaten to nuke us? I suppose we should give them our lunch money, too. If they threaten to nuke us, we strike immediately and remove the threat. Something about not negotiating with terrorists.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: no one called for the impeachment of President George HW Bush for his exagerated claims when the war was over.
I'm sure someone did. But regardless, that particular Bush suffered far worse than impeachment. At least impeachment is potentially politically survivable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I find it hard to believe that if the WMD are buried deep underground, they constitued an imminent threat to America. Or they could be deployed on the battlefield in 45 minutes.
As for North Korea--Do YOU want to see a war with them? I don't. And I'm not going to say that if they threaten to nuke us (which they already have), then we should unleash the full power of our fully armed and operational empire onto the Korean Peninsula. A 2nd Korean War would be a disaster.
quote:Originally posted by Veers: I find it hard to believe that if the WMD are buried deep underground, they constitued an imminent threat to America. Or they could be deployed on the battlefield in 45 minutes.
A British claim, not a US one, and since retracted. At least try to keep your accusations straight.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
