Invalidates the "new" reason for war, Genocide?
 

http://www.oss.net/extra/news/?module_instance=1&id=879

Now read the SOURCE article for this.

Suppose for a moment (and it might very well be true) that Iranian nerve gas killed the Kurds in that village... Does that matter? Someone killed them, using nerve gas.

It is a well-known fact that Saddam did indeed murder many Kurds, Shiites and other people during his decades in power. Therefore, he is *still* guilty of genocide, no matter if he killed these particular Kurds or not.

If you want further evidence about Saddam's genocidal tendencies, read some stories about his actions against the Shiites after the ('91) Gulf War...

Correct. But it absolutely does matter, because one of the reasons we supposedly had to get rid of Saddam was the oft-stated claim that "he gassed his own people." Colin Powell and Condi Rice have both made this claim on the record.

If nothing else, this administration is guilty of Clintonian-level fact-fudging. But Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed.

and where was the nerve gas when US troops were invading?

and dont tell me he didnt use 'em cuz he was afraid of rummy

If we knew that we'd go get them. I think they buried them in some remote location in the desert. They did it with a few of their MIG's, it's not improbable they'd hide their weapons as well. In doing this (assuming that the U.S. never finds said weapons) they'll most likely end up doing more damage to their enemies then they would by using them.

well, now he lost his 2 sons and his own life is at risk.

i'm pretty sure that he knew this would happen.

According to something I read today:

After Saddam allowed in Hans Blix's inspectors, they spent 111 days searching for the supposed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 111 days ago now, which means that we've spent more time not finding weapons of mass destruction than Hans Blix did. Yet Blix was denounced as "sloppy", "incompetent" and "in bed with Saddam" during his inspections by American pundits.

Wonder when they'll start saying the same about the Bush administration?

No doubt, that's why he ran away. If he wanted to go out with a bang he would have done it, but it wouldn't have been an intelligent descision. If you've got it in your head he wants to hurt the United States (and he does), I'd say getting rid of what he's got or selling it off and making sure we don't find out about it will prove to be more damaging then say nuking/gassing Baghdad and killing a few thousand soldiers and a ton of his own people.

I wouldn't blame Hans Blix, he might have been able to find something if the Iraqi's stopped hiding/moving them and he had his own legion of inspectors looking.

and i guess iraqi's are still moving the trucks around just when an army convoy comes in?

Nope, but at least now we'll have a shot.

we are having "a shot" for the past few months and still nothing havent turned up.

Go help then. Searching an entire country above and below ground is infinately more difficult then most people think.

It only matters to anti-war people, apparently... :)

Clinton's lies may not have killed anyone, but they sure as hell didn't save an entire country, it's inhabitants and it's future. How's about looking at that for a change. Given Saddam's record, it is quite likely that he would have killed *more* Iraqis in the past months than the US has so far.

Its fucking obvious that the WMD's were shipped out of the country to Syria/Jordan. I do believe in both countries the Baath party is in power. As far as the genocide goes, does the fact that we are uncovering mass graves with thousands of bodies mean anything?

Dragonlich:

What absolute twaddle.

That is patently the most asinine statement I have yet seen on this board. Would you like me to tell you, in detail and at great length, exactly why?

Now that the soda I spewed through my nose upon reading your utterly ridiculous canard has been wiped from my monitor, I would point out that we may have saved a country, but only in a Colonel Klink sort of sense. We had to burn Iraq to save Iraq. And I'm pretty sure that those thousands of civilian, women and children among them, don't feel all that "saved." Nor do the tens of thousands who are still without water and electricity. As for Iraq's future, that future is being sucked out even as we speak through pipelines belonging to companies like Halliburton and Unocal. Saved Iraq? Destroyed it, more like. Destroyed it based on a justification that was an out-and-out lie. Where are the WMDs? Answer me that, then tell me about "saving" Iraq. Bush lied. People died. It's that simple. Sort of a calculus of politically motivated death, if you will.

I would dearly love for you to provide me some documentation for that. Considering that somewhere between five and ten thousand Iraqi civilians and many many more in their military forces are now dead, I'm failing to see how Saddam would have accomplished that. Sadly enough, we may never know how many Iraqi civilians died. It's not exactly like the U.S. is going to release an accurate count, is it?

Document this claim, please. It should be easy if it's that "fucking obvious." And I think I'll require you to go beyond nebulous references to national intelligence sources. We all saw how well that worked out last time, didn't we? Artistic renderings of mobile laboratories, for Christ's sake.

How many of those graves, I wonder, were the ones we created in 1991 when we simply rolled massive bulldozers over Iraqi trench fortifications? You never bothered to ask why the military's claimed kill-count was so much higher than the confirmed body count, did you?

You're dodging the issue. We claimed that we knew where the WMDs were, and that Blix's inspectors had had quite enough time. Let me repeat: We stated publicly, repeatedly, and for the record that we knew where the WMDs were. So where are they? Why have we not turned them up yet? What have we got, besides two hydrogen-production trailers sold to Iraq by the British and a bunch of centrifuge parts buried in some guy's rose garden for a decade? Answer me: where are the weapons of mass destruction? We've been looking long enough, we've had enough time. Isn't that how the riff goes?

And why is it that I doubt I'm ever going to get a real answer on that question?

You people are insane if you don't think there are WMD's. The last time this happened in 95' Saddam played the same games. "No WMD's, you want to search my country? Go for it?" so UN inspectors get there Saddam plays wag the dog, we find nothing. Next thing that happens some people defect and give us the skinny, what do we find?

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm

Great. So where are they? We've had more time than the inspectors did, and we had the advantage of supposedly knowing where they were? Again: Where are they?

I was reading through that paper, and I found this: "No concrete information on the scope of Iraq's biological warfare program was available until August 1995, when Iraq disclosed, after Husayn Kamil's defection, the existence of an offensive biological warfare (BW) capability." The problem with this is that the Bush administration hid the fact that Kamel had in fact testified that he had personal knowledge that Iraq had "destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them."

Would you care to explain why you've chosen to rely on a position paper that quotes intelligence information that has since been discredited? In fact, Kamel's testimony is at the very heart of the paper you cite. But the paper makes no mention of the rest of Kamel's testimony., and neither did the Bush administration. The document you have provided bears no more credibility than those which prompted the uranium-from-Niger claims. Now that you know the rest of the story, would you like to perhaps revise your position?

No I'm sticking by it because when we went back in 98' we found 17,000 liters of Anthrax that he didn't have.

Dodging the issue? You guys always say that, even when I've answered already. If we knew where they were we'd go get them. If it's true we knew where they were before going to war then they were either moved, buried or destroyed. I don't know where they are, why would I? Why would you? I assume you're trying to point out that they never existed, to that I say: "Ha-Ha."

If you've already made up your mind, why bother attacking me at all?

so the usa was watching the iraq nonstop with satellities and planes and they were able to hide their weapons and noone noticed it?

the usa showed "proofs" of locations were some WMDs were stored? what it with those buildings now? suddently empty?

I assume they checked said buildings, someone probably would have spoke up if they were still there. These guys have been moving their weapons around for a good while, we know that much, (the weapons exist, and they've been evading UN inspectors) it doesn't surprise me at all that this is the case when the U.S. military comes knocking on their door. In all likelyhood, they cleared those buildings out the day Colin spoke to the UN if they weren't already emptied to thwart a group of inspectors.

As for when they were moved, if they were there in the first place, and where they went, I couldn't tell you. I'd put my money on them being buried somewhere, destroyed, or sold. Burying them is odd, but they did it to their MIG's, good camoflague to say the least I suppose. I'm sure you're welcome to enlist and help look for them though.

What a well thought out response.

Simple: anti-war people seem eager to find anything to back their stance, while pro-war people don't give a rat's arse. Just a fact, really.

Iraq was already burned, the US attack didn't destroy that much. The tens of thousands without water and electricity were already without water and electricity *before* the war. It took Saddam & co YEARS to rebuild the utilities after the '91 gulf war, and then it usually only worked in Baghdad, and only at certain times of day. That is a fact, sir.

The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. You THINK it is being "sucked out" by US companies, even though this is a huge overstatement of reality, and in the end just plain bullocks. Those US companies have to hire Iraqi people to man their operations, they'll have to pay taxes to the Iraqi government, and they will have to compete for the goods like every other company on the face of this planet. Besides, the *US government* is paying for that reconstruction, so why wouldn't they hire US companies, especially if those companies have tons of experience in rebuilding infrastructure?

The WMDs have nothing to do with saving Iraq. The Iraqi people have more freedom than they ever had, and this freedom will only increase. Just because the US can't find WMDs doesn't mean that the Iraqi people are somehow not free anymore.

And yes, people died during the attack, but that's to be expected. When my country was liberated by the allies during WW2, thousands of Dutch civilians died; does that somehow change the fact that we were liberated? Should we now blame the allies for killing those poor unfortunate civilians? Or should we blame our oppressors, the Germans, for creating a situation where those civilians might be killed? The same goes for Iraq: Saddam is ultimately responsible for those civilian deaths, because *he* refused to avert the war; *he* refused to step down; *he* practically invited the US army to invade, then made damn sure that civilians were caught in the resulting cross-fire.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands, even millions, of his people. It is safe to assume he would have kept doing that if he had stayed in power. If we discount the military deaths (common practice, given that we're only looking at *civilian* deaths here), we're looking at 5,000 to 10,000 deaths caused by the war. That includes many that were killed at the hands of the Iraqi army and irregulars, either through direct action (execution, falling AAA ammo, deliberate targeting), and indirect action (human shields, hiding in civilian clothes, in civilian areas). Now, suppose we remove 1,000 civilian deaths for this. That leaves us with 4,000 to 9,000 deaths. Given that, on average, Saddam is said to have killed some 20,000 of his people each year... he would probably have killed more.

Lots of murky numbers there, I admit. But unfortunately we'll never know exactly how many Iraqi civilians died at the hands of Saddam. After all, it's not exactly likely that he'd ever admit that, now is it? If you want to compare the "evil" US invasion to the "evil" Saddam, I'd suggest you take a good look at the news reports about mass-graves popping up all over the place. Those were the result of Saddam's actions, not US actions.

Now, if you were to suggest that civilian casualties are to be avoided at all times, even if that means not going to war in the first place, I'd respect that opinion. Just remember that this would also have meant that *my* country would never have been liberated from German occupation. If you happen to have another option... how would *you* have gotten rid of Saddam? After all, leaving him in power would be bad; UN sanctions didn't help one bit; He wasn't willing to go... That leaves very little room for compromise, doesn't it?

Anything that existed pre '99 is almost a non issue. It is documented fact he had it then. Clinton implemented operation Desert Fox in late '98 because of it. With 200 strategically launched Cruise Missiles that people like former inspector Ritter said destroyed upwards of 95% of anything that Saddam had left, including the production facilities. So, sure he had that anthrax, but it's gone now after being engulfed in a ball fo cruise missile fire.

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors who then told us what Saddam was hiding and where it was. And the inspectors provided us with proof of their actual existence. Course that didn't stop the republicans from complaining that the strike was all just a diversion from what was going on in Clinton's pants. But then the Republicans were always good at turning a blind eye when it is convenient for them.

Do the Iraqi's think they were saved? hmm.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

Maybe he should read up on a bit of GLOBAL BUSINESS ETIQUETTE

http://www.getcustoms.com/articles/gest2.jpgThumbs up:

With an outstretched fist, the thumb is extended straight up.

"Thumbs up" as a positive gesture quickly gained popularity in the U.S.A., especially as a visual signal in noisy environments. Pilots unable to shout "All's well!" or "Ready!" over the noise of their engines used it frequently. With a slight backwards tilt, this gesture is used for hitchhiking. However, in most of the Middle East and parts of Africa (notably Nigeria), this symbol can be obscene. It Japan, the thumb is considered the fifth digit; a raised thumb will order five of something!

The man is completely clueless. He really is the emperor parading about in his new clothes.

I got this off The DailyKos.

Superbelt, first of all, I won't bother to read that NY Times article, because I have to subscribe to get it. I won't. Perhaps you could copy 'n paste some juicy bits?

Second of all, the thumbs up/thumbs down thing has been talked about many times before, and it's just bullocks. The Iraqis are happy, celebrating, and offering a thumbs up to US forces and foreign journalists. Are you suggesting that they're actually *not* happy, and that all that apparent emotional release is a ploy designed to appear happy, when they're actually insulting the US forces? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Stating that it *can be* obscene isn't enough to convince me that it actually *is* obscene. Given that they know we see it as positive, I could just as easily "proof" that they mean it in a positive way.

don't bother reading it. It is basically just a slam on wolfowitz and no more is really relevant to this. And you are right. Iraqi's know we use the thumbs up as an affirmative. And we really can't know either way what they really mean. But Wolfie takes it to be a statement of support automatically. I doubt he knows the customs in the arab world at all. I'd bet he tries to shake hands with people over there using his right hand. He's a very ignorant and pompous person.

I think they used this as a veiled attempt to flip us off. They know we will take it one way and they can defy us without any consequences.

wolfowitz is an arrogant bastard indeed. anyone seen the interview he gave on meet the press??

the wmd's were touted as the #1 reason for an attack on iraq. now that the attack is over and we cant find the weap's, all the hawks are going "wmd's were not the reason for the war".

Not me, so technically that's not true =).

if only i had the posts from tfp 3.0

Ok I think I am turning blue saying this so many times but here goes anyhow.......

It was proven he had all sorts of wmd's that is not in dispute.

He never proved that they were either,
1. Destroyed
2.Dismantled
3. or Turned over to the great UN

So this "hawk" still thinks there are WMDs and will be found some where.

I thought so; I'm glad you agree.

True, with caveats: pro-war people certainly don't give a rat's arse about the damage we've done to Iraq or the innocent civilians we've killed. Most of the pro-war people, furthermore, don't really give a rat's arse about "liberating" Iraq. I think Sixate said it best: they just like watching their big powerful country beat up on little pissant uneducated countries. Such a wonderful thing, jingoism...

Stuff in Iraq destroyed? Gosh, I wonder who could have done *that*. You say this like it excuses the United States, but the fact is that all of that pre-existing destruction (and there was a lot less of it before this year) was our doing, too.

That is absolute bushwah (pun intended.) If you're trying to sell me the bill of goods that says that we didn't actually manage to blow apart any power plants or water facilities in our latest national wargasm, then it is my opinion, sir, that you may in fact be completely insane. Additionally, how do you think those "other" power plants and water facilities got destroyed? Was there anyone *besides* America and Britain invading Iraq in the last ten years, that I'm somehow not aware of?

Um, that would be "the Iraqi people that the U.S. occupational government deems politically suitable. What, you think we're gonna allow anyone who can even spell "Baath Party" anywhere near the new puppet government?

In a pig's eye. Or did you not hear about the new "bid system" that will allow approved oil companies to bid against each other for lots of Iraqi oil? Gee, can you say "collusion?" I knew you could.

By this, you mean Halliburton. Y'see, Halliburton was awarded a bunch of those rebuilding contracts without even having to bid on them.. Not coincidentally, Halliburton is Vice President Dick "Pacemaker Man" Cheney's company. Oh, yes, we're importing those wonderful American values into Iraq: political intolerance, violence, and patronage. Lovely.

Ahem. I was told repeatedly this year that they had them, we knew they had them, and that we knew where they were, not to mention that they could deploy them against the United States in as little as an hour. I was also told that they had a nuclear program. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they just a convenient excuse to invade a sovereign nation?

Is your last name perhaps Fleischer? Just curious, mind. At any rate, spoken like a PR flack. I would love to see you justify calling a people whose sovereignty has just been violated "free".

Stop right there. Just fucking stop. That is a patently ridiculous statement. It is a transparent blow-off, a ridiculous attempt at justification, and speaks of an absolute lack of concern for the people whose putativeb freedom you were just moments ago bleeding over.
Between five and ten thousand Iraqis are dead at the hands of the United States and its allies.. Full stop. So much for liberation.

Difference: in World War II, the Allies were the liberators. Now, they're the invaders. How many more will die to free the Iraqis of the Allies, I wonder?

For the ones who took up arms against the Allies, no. For all the others, absolutely.

[B] So I suppose the inspectors were more of a naturally occurring phenomenon? And all those reports that there were no WMDs were just hallucinations experienced on a worldwide scale, I presume?

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this once. No nation, not the United States, nor any other, has any right whatsoever to demand that any leader abdicate power for any reason. Sovereign nations are just that: sovereign nations. That Saddam wouldn't step down on our say so in no way justifies, validates, or excuses an armed invasion. That is international law, sir, and we are not above it.

It's a testament to the childishness of our President that such a schoolyard tactic could have succeeded. This is the United States of America, not some sixth-grader on the playground. I don't care if said your mother wears combat boots, we had no right to invade.

By locating his power plants and water treatment facilities conveniently to cities where they could actually do some good? What an absolutely silly thing of him to do. How dare he even attempt to provide those people basic services? How dare he?

Whereas it took us only about a month to kill as many as half that number. Listen: just because Saddam did it doesn't mean that we should as well. We're supposed to be better than that, instead of sinking to his level. Speaking, by the way, of cruel and oppressive dictators, when did you say we were going to liberate Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and China?

So you deny that United States forces used bulldozers in combat to collapse Iraqi berm fortifications and bury their defenders alive?

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. And don't fret, the Russians took care of the Third Reich several days before the United States reached Berlin. Gee... maybe if we hadn't invaded, all those Nederlanders who died would have been alive, hmm? It's not as if the occupation would have continued long once Hitler ate a bullet.

Actually it does, if we're as pure as we claim to be. By invading Iraq and laying waste to its infrastructure, killing its people, outlawing political parties, and auctioning off its mineral wealth, we are ourselves no better than Saddam Hussein. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We supported him in the 80's. We armed his nation as a bulwark against Iran. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the results of that tampering. Nobody but ourselves.

*laughs*

Humor me. If you've answered it before, then just put it here, one more time. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I want places and quanitites.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

do you have some independent statistics to back up this ridiculous statement, or are you just jumping to (unfounded) conclusions?

Gee, let me see... reasons for Iraq's stuff being destroyed: a long war with Iran? A war with the UN Saddam started? *Decades of neglect*?

Y'see, Saddam preferred to spend all of Iraq's money on pretty palaces, weapons and such things, instead of investing in infrastructural improvements, or even repair.

Would you prefer the German post-war system, where many former Nazis were allowed to stay in power? I doubt the Iraqis would be very happy with Ba'ath party members still in control of the country, only now with US backing... hell, the US kicked out various local leaders after local Iraqis complained they were former Ba'ath party members!

They did bid, and Halliburton was awarded the contract. After all, they have tons of experience in rebuilding Kuwait's oil infrastructure, so why *wouldn't* they get the contract?

Again, WMDs have NOTHING to do with saving the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator. They may have been a reason for invasion, but without them, the Iraqis are STILL liberated. And yes, I do justify invasion of a "sovereign nation" liberation. I take it you do not - so you think the US should re-instate Saddam Hussein and pack their bags? As for freedom: previously, the Shiites weren't allowed to go to their holy city, and they certainly weren't allowed to voice their opinion. Now they can do both - how would that NOT be freedom?

In war, people die. Some of those people will be civilians. The rest of them, not killed in the fighting, are liberated. Wars are nasty, mistakes happen, and innocent people die. Deal with it. The fact that I expect (and accept) that innocent people will die in a war does not mean that I somehow don't care about them.

Today, it's invaders ridding a country of an evil dictator. You know, the same thing the US did to Germany and Japan during WW2. If anyone is willing and able to kick out the Allies, they're welcome to try, but I'd consider them enemies.

As for the innocent victims of WW2: I suggest you read up on your history - during WW2, it was nigh impossible to *not* hit innocent civilians. It's not a fucking video-game, you know.

Oh, for fuck's sake - HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE INSPECTIONS. He was supposed to give EVIDENCE proving that he had destroyed his WMDs, and HE DID NOT DO THAT.

Pay attention, because I'm going to say this only once: you're wrong.

No, he made sure his civilians were killed by hiding his army and irregulars in CIVILIAN AREAS, by shooting at HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE, and by FIGHTING IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES. Or did you conveniently forget about those episodes?

Repeat: war is nasty, people die. Deal with it.

I do not. Where did I ever say I denied that? In fact, where did you ever mention that?

FYI, the US did indeed do that, and for a very good reason: it's common sense. If the Iraqis would not give up, they'd be killed using this tactic. You can't blame the US for their opponent's refusal to give up. And you certainly can't blame the US for thinking up a novel tactic, instead of running towards the trenches, WW1-style.

If that's what you're saying, you're incredibly naive.

And you seem to forget that the invasions of France and Italy forced Hitler to divide his forces, instead of focusing all he had on the Russians. Without the US, the Russians would not have had it so easy. And to be totally frank: I actually like the fact that I was liberated by the Western Allies, thank you very much. I would not have liked living under a communist dictatorship.

Irrelevant (and bullshit and hysterical paranoia).

Did you have another option besides waiting yet another 12 years for UN inspections not to find anything?

small note:
true, but civillians were also knowingly targeted. Bombing and killing civillians was a tactic use by all nations in WW2. The allies called it "dehousing" (sounds a bit like "collateral damage" but means that you firebomb known residental areas)


Oh and one question for the pro-war guys since you ignored it in the last post :)

Why did Bush choose to liberate iraq and not Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, or China?

Oh and 150.000 soldiers to the iraq but only 7 soldiers to liberate Liberia (Tyler has proven connections to the AlKaida)?

I know that. It was part of the "total war" concept, where you mobilize your entire nation to fight, and your enemy does the same. Therefore, enemy civilians are also fair game.

As a side-note: advocates of air-power were the main driving force for this total war concept, in that they thought that they could break the morale of the enemy by blowing up civilians. Usually they were proven wrong.

Congo, Zaire, Angola would be really annoying to fight in - it's basically vietnam all over again. How would you keep the peace if there's no peace to be kept? How would you liberate a country where various tribes like to murder each other on a daily basis?

Cuba has been tried, but containment seems a better option.

Pakistan is a strategic ally, and wouldn't even be "liberated" - it'd be like liberating a hornet's nest...

North Korea is well on it's way to being liberated, if they keep up their agressive stance. Containment seems to work for now.

And China is simply too big to attack right now; that'd be suicidal, and could easily lead to a nuclear war, killing all of mankind.

Yes, 7 soldiers... to support the African peacekeepers, and to prepare the way for another batch of US troops as soon as Taylor steps down. Sheesh, at least *try* and show the whole picture, will you?

As for Taylor's connections to Al Qaida: I wouldn't know. Might be true, I just never heard anything about it. Suppose it's true - how is this suddenly justification for an intervention, when it wasn't in the case of Saddam? :)

Oh so the USA is only moralic superior nation if it is easy? Liberating some nations is "annoying"...

so the goverment is allowed to do whatevery they want to, just like iraq a couple of years ago...that brings up the question again if the USA is able to learn...

So the people have to starve a bit longer, no problem for them, they are used to it...

Why wait? Why not force him out just like Saddam? I try to see the whole picture with the eyes of a pro War guy and it makes no sense. so please explain it to since I seem to be too stupid...

And if he is gone, do have plans for the time after that? or will it be try and error like iraq? Do you have plans to prevent the nation to become a nation "where various tribes like to murder each other on a daily basis" or where various groups try to murder american troops on a daily basis?

Do you think the USA will wait until a stable goverment is installed in the iraq or will they try to get out of there as quick as possible leaving the nation in a potentially unstable situation?

nice try, but there are no connections between Saddam and AlKaida.

Sure. right here, in Sixate's own words. Unfounded? Hardly.

And yet according to all accounts, Baghdad and surrounds was mostly whole in 1991 before the missiles started falling. See, the fighting against Iran was held mostly on Iraq's eastern border. Which means the vast majority of the existing destruction happened as a direct result of the actions of the United States.

You're entirely missing the point. If Iraq is as "free" as you claim it to be, then why have we suppressed a particular political party? Let me be clear: if the Iraqis don't like Baathists, they can bloody well vote them out. Instead, we're ruling by fiat and suppressing who we wish because we wish. That is not freedom.

Wrong. Very wrong. As you can see here. That's twice now, by the way, that you with all pomp and bombast have claimed things aren't so when they so clearly and obviously are just so. I encourage you to check your facts more closely.

Listen much to The Who? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... after all, we kill Iraqis as well or better than he did. We ban political thought that we don't like, just as he did. We make free with Iraq's mineral wealth, just like he did. Wow, what saviors we are!

Sure, let's push the smoke back into the bottle with a baseball bat. My point is that we never should have been there in the first place. We can't unkill 10,000 Iraqis. We can't un-destroy infrastructure. We can't undo the crimes against international law that we have committed.

And yet they still can't affiliate with certain political parties if they wish. Freedom indeed.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. You don't care enough to try to do something about it, obviously. I do; I plan on executing regime change the legal way: by voting.

As far as evil dictators, did you ever figure out when we're gonna go "liberate" those other countries? Guess not. Looks like liberation only comes for those who have oil, eh?

And that's why the inspectors were there - to verify that there were no more WMDs. The inspectors found none, but we kicked them out before the job was done. Hans Blix himself said that his inspectors had enjoyed "unprecedented" access. But they found no WMDs. And neither have we. That looks suspiciously like evidence; evidence that has not been superseded.

That's it. I have arrived at the unfortunate yet inescapable and plainly obvious conclusion that you possess no understanding of the meaning of the word "sovereignty", nor of international law, nor of the rights of nations to self-determination. You quite clearly do not get it. So, I'm going to flush the rest of your post, and leave you with this:

sovereign, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.

That's *self-governing*, not subject to the whims of other nations without due process under international law. No nation has any right whatsoever in any circumstances to force the leader of another nation to step down, lacking casus belli. We found no WMDs, we had no casus belli, and if you don't think that's the way it should be, then tough. That's the law. The United States is not above the law. And nor are you.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

jesus ctembruell should run for senator or something - would make congress a lot more exciting :D

that being said.. i hate to nit-pick on everything but Japan and Germany were hardly "liberated" to remove a dictator

in case you all forgot your history (or maybe its distorted) but the U.S. hardly cared about them - it was when they declared war upon us (yes they first) that we finally declared war on them - because they were the clear aggressors.

We liberated the captured nations of the world - France, the low countries, etc. - Germany was hardly liberated by the U.S. nor was Japan - they simply surrendered unconditionally. Hitler killed himself and Germany was divided - Japan's own Emperor remained in power til he died but 2 decades ago.

The people of Japan and Germany (the majority) mostly all lived willingly under their domestic systems for many years and the majority supported their leaders.

Don't get thigns mixed up please people.

*sigh*

Congo, Zaire, Angola: The US goes in, the US shoots some random people, and the US spends the next twenty years in a guerilla war, pissing off everyone else on the planet. No, that sounds like a really great plan...

Pakistan: a country filled with fundy muslims, all eager to kill their share of the US invasion force. Again, great idea to "liberate them".

North Korea: An army of millions of brainwashed north-koreans, a maniac at it's head, ready to blow up his neighbors, a large norther neighbor able to intervene, and in the past willing to do so... Perhaps waiting is a better idea, in terms of lives lost/saved, than going in gung-ho, like you seem to advocate.

And Liberia: why NOT wait? Suddenly everything has to be done right away? Wait a week, and Taylor is gone. As for when he's gone: you wanted the US to go in, so *you* think up ways to keep the peace there.

By the way... you seem to think pro-war guys are murderous bastards. They're not. They're just more willing to go to war than anti-war people.

I see it like this: anti-war people are determined to never go to war again, no matter if they're forced into one. They prefer to look at far-away people and be angry about their sad lives. Intervention would be bad, because that might actually kill people, and killing people is wrong. Therefore, we should all just sit back and continue looking and protesting and hoping everything will turn out fine.

Pro-war people don't like doing that: they'd prefer to actually go in and try to *solve* things by direct action. If people die during that action, that is the price to pay for a better world. Yes, it's sad for the families, but they'll get over it eventually.

And finally the links between X and Al Qaida: sorry, but where's *your* prove of links between Taylor and Al Qaida? You started throwing around accusations.

One opinion doth not make a statistic, sir.

By all accounts, Baghdad is still pretty whole today. It's not as bad as you seem to think - the US did not carpet-bomb the city into oblivion, you know. And still... Saddam did not invest in the infrastructure. Most of the current infrastructure dates back 30+ years, and is in dire need of replacement. How exactly can the US be held responsible for this?

No, YOU are missing the point. The Ba'ath party was in charge of a dictatorship, and were controlling the country by force. You cannot expect the Iraqi people to be free if their former oppressors are still in control, and refusing to give up that control. To end a regime, you need to remove the puppets of that regime. Failure to do so will undermine the future democratic evolution of that country. The fact that "they can be voted out of office" is rather bullshit, particularly if the security apperatus would still be around, the police would still beat the living crap out of everyone opposed to the "former" regime, and the laws would still be made by those former regime members.

Oh, right... hearsay and "we think it might be wrong". Where's the proof, son? And where's your answer to my claim that Halliburton is very good at what they do, which is fixing destroyed infrastructure?

How's about responding to my post, instead of sporting bullshit like this? WMDs or not, the Iraqis are free. Just because you think the US is evil does not mean it's true. If you think the US is even remotely comparable to Saddam, you're either blinded by hatred, or just plain insane.

No, but we can sure as hell give the Iraqis a better future than they would have had with Saddam still around.

Ah yes... the former dictators are not allowed to have a say, and therefore the Iraqis aren't free. Grow up. Wake up and smell the coffee. In loads of countries which changed from a dictatoship to a democracy, the former regime was removed from the political spectrum. It's common sense, and not at all repression. These parties would quickly be able to re-assert their position, thanks to the fear the normal people have of them, and their links to the former security apperatus. They would then be able to grab power again, even if the rest of the people disagree.

My take on it is that you didn't give a rat's arse about the Iraqi people, and would rather have Saddam keep on killing them. I supported the invasion, which was a solution to the problem. You supported standing on the side-line and blaming the US for those deaths, while not doing ONE BIT to stop them. How noble of you.

Oh, you mean like the many other countries the US liberated? Sure, all of them had oil. Yeah, that's it... I encourage you to check your facts more closely.

No WMDs found means that they weren't there, eh? What about those tons of nerve gas and biological agents Saddam claims to have destroyed, but then failed to document? Or would you suggest that Hans Blix himself was lying when he said Saddam had failed to prove the destruction of all that stuff? As has been said time and time again: Saddam had to prove he had destroyed his WMDs. Saddam failed to do that. Therefore, the US/UN had no reason whatsoever to believe his word, especially after he had lied to them time and time again.

You obviously have no idea what international POWER means. Independent sovereign countries are only able to do what they want as long as they don't piss off the rest of the world. When they do, "sovereign" means exactly jack shit.

The "casus belli" in this case was Saddam's refusal to cooperate FULLY with resolution 1441. He did not prove he had WMDs, as was demanded. He did not provide full information, as was demanded. In fact, it turned out he had been building illegal missiles he wasn't allowed to, clearly breaching previous UN resolutions. Casus belli enough.

In the real world, outside of dusty law books, not everything is always black and white. The US is *able* to do what it does, and it will do it, no matter if you agree or not. It does things because it can. The rest of the world will have to deal with that, international law or not. If some bastard like Saddam thinks he can fuck with the US while hiding behind international law... well, it turns out he was wrong. And international law or not, he was STILL a murderous bastard, and he STILL deserved to have his arse kicked. Stating that we have no right to intervene is, in my opinion, a rather pathetic excuse: it's another way of saying "fuck you" to the people of Iraq.

And I'm done with you too. You obviously don't agree with this war, while I do. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we, before we end up in a nasty flame war...

i have nothing against a well-reasoned war. i can agree that the strike on afghanistan was called for. they had known ties to al queda and refused to eject the terrorists. that's all good reasons.
and they also had intel that osama bin laden was in afghanistan and the training camps and all that stuff.

but iraq? i dont see any good reason. most of the reasons that bush touted before the war has been proven wrong or hasnt been validated after months of US troops there.

ctembreull,

If you haven't had the chance to read the papers lately run a search and check out two important items:

1) A recently discovered Presidential order (from about two months ago) that was lingering in the archives that essentially indemnifies all corporate interests from any illegal activities.

2) Soldiers are reporting that we did, after all, drop napalm on Iraqi soldiers and civilian targets.

edit: interested people can start looking here http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/08/001179.html

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...3/03-13412.htm

Most huh? I have heard of only one so far. And NOTHING has been PROVEN wrong.

I know I said I was done. Fine. I lied. I have a fundamental issue with allowing blatant logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions about international law, sovereignty, and the rights of nations pass by unassailed.

Without overloading you with links and statistics, I invite you to browse the online forums at lucianne.com and at freerepublic.com. You'll find all the corroborating evidence you require.

Rather like the infrastructure in a large percentage of America. How does age signify neglect? But you can't claim that we didn't purposefully destroy vast quantities of Iraq's infrastructure, knocking out water and power to thousands and thousands of citizens who previously had both.

Feh, you get your proof and you say it's not good enough? Halliburton did receive a no-bid contract worth hundreds of millions. That's fact. Halliburton's qualifications for the job are a red herring. But since you insist on more, here's a few more links:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...liburton_x.htm

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/am...s/032803a.html (syndicates an Agence France Presse report)
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/n...ve/5972319.htm (syndicates an Associated Press report)

That enough for you? Halliburton received the contract without having to bid for it.

Just because you think the Iraqis are free, does not mean it's true. Their political expression is being suppressed. Their mineral wealth is being exploited. That is not freedom. We have removed Iraq's government, but we have not freed its people. Your argument, in any case, is a red herring. America was dragged into this war on the backs of claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead, ask for proof, if you like. The freedom of Iraqis is an ad populem, an attempt to divert the public's attention from the lack of WMD evidence by appealing to other emotions (e.g. sympathy, patriotism, etc.). To claim that our invasion was justified because the Iraqis are now "free" is simply to state that the ends justify the means, and that holds no water.

Just so. Freedom includes political expression. It's just that simple. From your attitude, I can safely infer that you're in favor of banning unpopular speech and unpopular political expression anywhere. There's a word for that: totalitarianism. Hey look! Saddam repressed political speech he didn't like, and so do we! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...


You don't solve the problem of civilian deaths by causing ten thousand more of them. I do - and have - supported action within the framework of international law. Had the United Nations stated that an invasion was legitimate and required, I would have been disappointed but I would have held my peace. Instead, we acted in contravention of established international law and in doing so, killed thousands of innocent people. I'd love to know how exactly you consider that justified, or even good.


*Ahem* Kuwait. But notably not North Korea. Hmm...

Formal logic states that nobody can prove a negative; an argument which claims a theorem to be true simply because nobody can prove it wrong is a fallacy. It has been stated that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction because he has not proven that he does not. This is a logical fallacy and is a piss-poor justification for a war of aggression which violates the sovereignty of a state. You and every other hawk out there can scream until you're blue in the face about how Saddam has to prove it; this doesn't change the cold, hard fact that the entire basis for the war rested upon a logical fallacy that a first-year college student should know to avoid.

"No principle of international law is more critical than that of state sovereignty. This means that states have not any authority above them and that any state may do within their borders whatever they desire. Sovereignty also means that states are the one that confers power, in a voluntary way, to the international organisations they have decided to join.
The principle of sovereignty and the right of independence guarantee states autonomy in their internal and external affairs. Thus, sovereignty, independence and the principle of non-interference form the basis for the international rule of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. They also feed the UN principle of prohibition of the use of force against other states' territorial integrity or political independence." -- Dr. Ivan Martinez

"Independent sovereign countries are only able to do what they want as long as they don't piss off the rest of the world. When they do, "sovereign" means exactly jack shit." By your logic, Canada has license to invade the United States. China was justified in annexing Tibet, and would be justified in annexing Taiwan. And Saddam was justified in annexing Kuwait. The Soviet Union would have been justified in nuking the United States and the rest of NATO into a faintly glowing pile of dust; they had more nukes and more troops, after all. And for that matter, their invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly within their rights. Each and every one of these cases are examples or hypotheses of the larger dealing with the smaller as it wishes. Nobody is above international law.

Oh, so the basis of your entire argument, then, is that might makes right. Piss off the 800-pound gorilla and you're dead. That's nothing more than ignorant, small-minded, jingoistic bullshit. But let's apply your theorem to domestic policy, shall we? The largest and strongest takes what it wants when it wants. Oops. There go basic civil rights for minorities and women. There go voting rights for non-landowners in general.

Oops.

Who knows, though. If things continue apace, we may just wind up with the nasty, brutish, all-for-me-and-fuck-the-other-guy world you so clearly dream of. Enjoy it; it's the world you made.

The thing that relaly pisses me off is that people still say the U.S. can do whatever it wants - fine, do it, til one day we piss off enough that the entire world decides to screw us over when we're off guard and we are the ones being killed in the streets.

The long term is not very appealing - short term answers don't mean jack when 20 years down the line we are cursing our selves for letting shit happen.

And i will say this - people outside of hte U.S. that support the U.S. should also realize that the U.S. could very well turn on you the next day and you could be dead - so its not so appealing then.

ctembreull, You said you'd stop it, so stop it already. You're wrong, I'm right; or in your opinion: you're right, and I'm wrong.

I have valid arguments to support my case, you have valid arguments to back up your. Fine.

I'm done with this discussion. Enjoy the silence.

... wow never saw that one coming (or maybe im just out of it now)

Didn't those missles go like 15metres father than they were supposed to? Or was it like 5kilometres? Because 15 metres isn't really a big deal, although a technical violation, it would get the missle about 2 bus lengths father.

I may be wrong, I don't remember the numbers. It was on the news once. I know it was a 2 digit number. So it went XYunits farther than they were supposed to. Anyone have links to news that say how much father the missles went then they were supposed to?

BTW they dismantled those missles after they were found.

it wasn't that far btw and yes they were dismantled (another argument was that the simulations were w/o fuel and the warhead in which actuality it wouldn't fly as far)