Debate:Iraq War
(→A case for war) |
|||
| Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
:Random reply to a comment above: "Iraq was ... collateral damage". How cold can you be? How would ''you'' like to be "collateral damage" in someone else's geopolitical gaming? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 02:12, 7 December 2008 (EST) | :Random reply to a comment above: "Iraq was ... collateral damage". How cold can you be? How would ''you'' like to be "collateral damage" in someone else's geopolitical gaming? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 02:12, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::Remember, it's only 'deaths' if they're ''white''. Brown-skinned folks are just "collateral damage". --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Bush knew it. == | ||
| + | BBC Sez: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm Report concludes no WMD in Iraq]<br/> | ||
| + | on the other hand,<br/> | ||
| + | Fox News says: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/ Whoohoo! They FOUND SOME!] In your FACE you filthy peacenik traitors! | ||
| + | {{cquote|The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.}} | ||
| + | ....Well, drat. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Al Qaeda weren't in Iraq until we LET them in == | ||
| + | [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed] --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:21, 8 December 2008
The brilliant and controversial journalist Christopher Hitchens seems to be the only one who supports the war in Iraq while not being a Republican blinded by George W. Bush (or Joe Lieberman). I listened last night to his debate with George Galloway -something I recommend for everyone to hear (link to audio)- and I have to admit I found Hitchens very convincing.
He believes that regardless of the fact that we were misled into war, and Bush and Blair led a propaganda campaign, and the evangelical Christian right went into a lather about killing Muslims; it still was a just and necessary war.
Their are four ways a country can loses its sovereignty according to International law
- Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons Violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit.
- Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations Iran, Kuwait.
- Genocide: 'nuff said.
- Playing hosts to terrorists etc. Also 'nuff said, it was a retirement village for terrorists.
Regarding WMD's: it's no secret that Hussein tried developing nukes, n 1981 -though it was unpopular in the world at the time- Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor; Richard Clarke said on Real Time with Bill Maher (October 6, 2006) that America was (secretly) glad that Israel took out the reactor. I think we can all imagine what the world would be like of Hussein had nukes. He also USED WMD's against the Kurds, and was constantly trying to get more.
As for me, I've had differing opinions on the war throughout the years. When the war began, I was still a young pup in Yeshiva without much understanding of the world, or the rationale (and lack thereof) for war. It was on the Jewish holiday of Purim when the war began, I was with my family and we were glad to hear that Saddam Hussein was now under attack.
A small note on Jewish hatred of Hussein: When coalition forces attacked Iraq in 1991, Hussein decided the proper response was to bomb... Israel. Now Israel very much wanted to retaliate with all their considerable military might, but were begged by the coalition no to. Why, you ask? The only way Muslim countries would go along with the attack was if Israel wasn't involved, (in fact, only two Islamic countries even recognize Israel after six decades; Egypt and Jordan). In return for their cooperation, Israel was given two batteries of MIM-104 Patriot missiles to intercept the 39 Scuds fired on them (from what I hear [I was a child in 1991], the Patriots didn't do much to stop the scuds; miraculously, only three Israelis were killed during the war). So there you have my tribal hatred for Hussein and his minions.
A year and a half later I started reading a lot more, listening to the news, and between reading and watching the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bill Maher (I owe my interest in politics to him) etc. I realized that A) We were lied to in the run-up to war and B) The war was being horribly mismanaged. I became against the war for those reasons.
After listening to Hitchens, it occurred to me that despite the above, the war itself may be just and necessary. I'm wondering what you all think.
ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 07:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Note: I STRONGLY recommend everyone to listen to the debate - if only for its entertainment value - it's 1 hour and 53 minutes long so you may want to put it on your Ipod. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 07:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
P.S. Anyone have a spare Ipod? Mine broke today. Gifts would be nice but I'll pay for it if need be..." ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 07:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Contents |
Against
Whether the Iraq war could have been just or not seems moot to me. I find myself completely unable to trust the motives of those who led us into the war and those who are ultimately in charge of its progress. From where I stand it seems like lives are being destroyed because GW has issues with his dad who did the right thing when he stopped at the border (and you've no idea how hard it is to admit that anyone called Bush did the right thing!) Silver Sloth 07:53, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I have strong oposition to this war and have much to take issue with in this article. Let's start with the areas in which a country can supposedly loose it's sovereignty
- Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons Violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit.
- There was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and did not have the capability to do so. Over the years, Pakistan, India and Israel (allegedly) have all contravened the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran is making moves towards nuclear power, but it is not yet proven they are developing nuclear weapons. The US is contravening non-proliferation by pursuing its nuclear defense shield, which will frankly be as much use as a chocolate condom no matter how many $billions they throw at it
- Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations Iran, Kuwait.
- Yes, they have done this, no argument. This wasn't used as justification though
- Genocide: 'nuff said.
- Years ago, Saddam did murder many people with chemical weapons. Those weapons were supplied by Britain and the US. In the years after the first Iraq war, the coalition partners, largely driven by Clinton and Madeline Albright supported sanctions that lead to the death of half a million children by not allowing essential medicines into Iraq
- Playing hosts to terrorists etc. Also 'nuff said, it was a retirement village for terrorists.
- Utter bull. There were no terrorists in Iraq until the coalition invaded. Saddam was ideologically opposed to Bin Laden - in fact they hated one another.
Fundamentally, the war was wrong because it was carried out on a lie. It was no bad thing to remove Saddam, but the planning and execution of the war and its aftermath were utterly useless. While the US and its partners were working out how to make Iraq stable, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed or displaced. It is a humanitarian disaster.
It makes me very sad to think of the lives on all sides that have been lost just to secure lucrative contracts for Bush's allies. It makes me worried about who they are thinking of going after next on a trumped up lie (The precedent has been set, so who's to say they won't do it again?). And all this time, the countries that could really do with outside help are left to their own divices, because they are either too hard to invade or because there is no money to be made. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma are all in a desperate state, but where is the help?
The war has had a detrimental effect on the view the world has of the US and its allies. It has been like a terrorist recruitment commercial, as the world has seen the terrible state that Iraq decended into and heard of atrocities carried out in Abu Gahraib, torture carried out by America, Guantanamo, and murders carried out unpunished by Blackwater. The world is not a safer place as a result of the invasion - quite the opposite.
I could easily go on, but I think my position is clear enough. Bondurant 08:24, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
In short, the US and UK governments did the right thing (removing a genocidal dictator oppressing his people) for the wrong reasons (ones that simply weren't true). This makes them totally and utterly wrong. Since the actual war itself, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that certain events inside Iraq have made it seem like a case of, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Coupled with that is the fact that it wasn't too long ago that the self-same genocidal dictator that was removed from power was seen as a friend of the West. Zmidponk 09:45, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I am aware of all the lies that were said to pursue the war, that it was mismanaged catastrophically and that there was mass cronyism in the awarding of contracts (often to corporation that wouldn't do the job and took the money, watch Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers for more on that). My main question wasn't whether we had the right, or if we did it the right way; I'm asking was the idea of invading Iraq, (regardless of US complicity in him getting his hands on WMD's in the first place, one recalls the prewar joke "'How can Bush be so sure the Hussien has WMD's?' 'He still has the receipts'") a good thing.
For those that answer in the negative -as I'm sure many of my colleagues here will- I ask this question: Is it ever justifiable to topple a regime if they are -for lack of a better word- evil (i.e. mass-murderers)?
Please note that I too am against the current operation in Iraq. These are question I am seeking answers for.
-- ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 10:42, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Call me a simplistic fool with no concept of the real world but... I look to Libya - once the all time bad guy in the middle east and north African area. By dint of long and careful negotiation we're at a point where we no longer feel the need to carpet bomb the place. Sure, Gadaffy still isn't up for the Nobel Peace prize but he's no longer #1 bad guy either. So, what am I driving at - in my view there needs to be a very present active threat - invading Poland, for example - before you send in the troops. Negotiation always needs to come first, and second, and third... Just not liking the guy isn't enough and we weren't there with Iraq. Silver Sloth 11:22, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
- Define "evil," DLerner. I agree that people like Robert Mugabe, Saddam, Kim Il Sung, the Taliban, etc could certainly be defined as evil and the world is or would be a better place if they weren't in control of entire countries. If you want to remove them from power, is it the right thing to do to invade their countries without any plan for long-term peace, and to kill thousands of innocent people?
- Where does the definition of "evil" end? Is the Wahabist regime in the US' great ally, Saudi Arabia evil? A country where women are not allowed any liberty at all, such as being able to go out unaccompanied in public, drive cars, hold jobs, etc. (probably the same as Andy Schlafly's ultimate vision of a conservative US).
- How about Vladimir Putin, who's standards of democracy are a joke, who has killed dissidents as if the soviet days had never gone away?
- Is the US evil for allowing torture and rendition of terror suspects?
- Regime change has never worked well, a lesson that the west never seems to learn. Who knows what the long term consequences of regime change in Iraq will be?
- If anyone wants a good long read of why the west is so consistently messing up in the middle east, it's worth trying to read Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation. If you can stomach 1300 pages of tragedy, it is a book that will change your outlook on the Middle East. Bondurant 11:44, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I think the invasion was wrong, for several reasons.
- Bush had made up his mind to invade, regardless of evidence. See about the Downing Street Memo.
- The Bush administration lied. They lied about WMDs and Hussein trying to acquire weapons, and deftly caused people to associate the Sept. 11 hijackers with Iraq, not Saudi Arabia. It's amazing how many people thought that the hijackers were Iraqis.
- We went in with no plan past the "Mission Accomplished" propaganda aircraft carrier landing. Bush wanted to be a great military president, but he and his cronies didn't do their homework.
- Our unilateralism alienated allies, squandered any international sympathy and good will we had, and made us a hated symbol of imperialist jingoism.
- We created a power vacuum, which was filled with terrorists. Life became worse for many people. Hussein, while very bad, was also secular and in some ways progressive (relatively). Women could get an education. They weren't killed for not wearing a habib.
- Our moral authority has completely crumbled. We torture. We kidnap. We started a war on trumped up evidence. Any demands by us for another country to obey international law (ahem, Russia) sound hollow and weak.
- We have overstretched our military. We have actual threats out there, and Iraq is a colossal drain on our military manpower. It scares me to hear neocons talk about invading Iran. With what soldiers? CorryTalk 13:07, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I have a problem with the idea that the U.S. should have any troops outside U.S. borders for any reason, or should have a military larger than the one we had during the 1930s or 1820s when there is no formal Congressional declaration of war. Congressional declarations of war should be specific and limited, and when there is no Congressional declaration of war there is no reason why there should be a U.S. military larger than what is needed to perform, say, ceremonial duties in and around Washington, D.C. Come to think of it, Costa Rica has had no military since...what is it, 1949, and they have had the most stable long-term democracy in Central America. So much for the crackpot notion that no military = weakness = opening yourself to attack and invasion. In fact the exact opposite is the case. If the U.S. had no military or only a ceremonial military or an inactive citizen militia, there would have been no 9/11. The Iraq War has ensured many more 9/11s will happen and has vastly helped Osama bin Laden's recruiting efforts. Our correct response to 9/11 would have been to recognize that the U.S. was wrong to have ever gotten militarily involved in the Middle East, and to pull all U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and cut off all military aid to both Israel and the Arab states. Secret Squirrel 21:47, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Interested?
If I were to post another argument in favor of the US having invaded Iraq in 2003 in principle, but with reservations about its execution since, would anyone be interested, or has everyone lost interest and gone home, as in the Hitler/Christian thread? This argument may or may not also include an opinion on why the US should not withdraw from Iraq, at least not too quickly nor too soon. BlueSprite 10:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- By all means. I'd LOVE to read a well-reasoned argument for why we should've gotten our head stuck in that bannister, and why we need to keep pouring money and human lives into that hole for the next hundred years. Because Eris knows BUSH hasn't made any that didn't amount to "TERRORISM! Booga Booga!" --Gulik 05:24, 6 December 2008 (EST)
A case for war
Put as simply as I am articulate enough to do, the war in Iraq was based on the following observations:
- The events of September 11th 2001 showed that there was a deep and dangerous malaise in the middle east, and that the root of it was Wahabism as well as the complacent and autocratic governments that tend to dominate in the middle east.
- "We finally got the guy who didn't cause 9/11" -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- The key center of Wahabism is of course Saudi Arabia, a country which could not be touched directly by any non-muslim country without grave consequences.
- So we took it out on someone who couldn't fight back. This part of the plan was commented on by many critics, including me. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- The United States had some influence in the middle east, but no avenues of hard power.
- US attempts to get nations in the middle east to pursue US interests in rooting out Al Quaeda had met with outright disdain.
- The geopolitical keystone of the middle east is Iraq.
- That's your excuse for invasion? "Location, location, location"? --Gulik 23:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Iraq was noteworthy for being under the rule of the most authoritarian and unscrupulous of the autocrats of the middle east.
- ...Who we helped put in power, and supported when he was fighting Iran. Oooops.
- Funny, I remember when they said the same thing about Mommar Kaddafi, and he hasn't been blowing things up lately. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Iraq represented a legitimate security threat because of its WMD programs.
- Wrong. No WMDs, no matter how sincere Colin Powell sounded. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- And on the most pragmatic level, it wouldn't have mattered if Iraq had had nuclear weapons, nerve gas, giant robots, and a crack troop of cyborg gorillas, they STILL wouldn't have attacked the US or anyone we cared about (ie--not the Kurds), as we'd've turned their entire country into a glowing parking lot at the first use, and Saddam knew this. Yay, deterrence. --Gulik 23:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Iraq was in violation of international law and the terms of a cease fire. Generally, violations of the terms of cease fires lead to war.
- Such as...?
- And, of course, negotiation was utterly out of the question. Only the cleansing fire of fuel-air bombs could eradicate this blight on humanity. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Hence:
- It being vital to US interests that nations in the region cooperate with the US in the uprooting of Al Quaeda specifically and terrorist organizations in general,
- You needed to talk to every country in the mideast EXCEPT Iraq, then, seeing how Saddam kept them pretty well squashed when he was Dictator. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- It being established that there is a good legal case for war with Iraq,
- Um, no. The case was "9/11! WMDs! TERRORISTS WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!@!!!1one!". You'll note the UN was NOT backing BushCo up on this one, and most of the Coalition of the Billing were only helping the US because we paid them. Justice was NOT on our side in this one. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- It being the case that Iraq represents a threat (if minor) to the US and a major threat to the region, as well as US interests in the region,
- Um, NO. Hussein wanted to go on dictating, and he must've noticed that Bush was gunning for his ass from the moment he took office. And we'd already done a Godzilla on his army ONCE, and could do it again. --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Diplomacy having failed to convince any of the nations in the region to cooperate with the US in the uprooting of Al Quaeda specifically and terrorist organizations in general,
- So, we decided to go after the wrong one.
- WHY do you keep invoking the Dread Specter of Al-Qaeda when it's pretty well documented that Iraq was NOT once of their sponsors? Or do you know something the 9/11 commission and the CIA don't? --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
It was therefore observed as necessary to make a fundamental change in the middle east, one that brought with it the ability of the United States to project hard power in the region. It was further observed that the geopolitical keystone of the region was weak militarily, was an unpleasant regime, and that there existed a strong legal case for war already on the books.
In a sense, Iraq was both collateral damage and a target of opportunity. Nevertheless, I maintain that it having been established that the status of the peace in the middle east was unacceptable without the cooperation of nations in the region to pursue our interests against terrorism, and that diplomacy bore no results.
- "When in doubt, beat someone up?" --Gulik 23:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Results of war
This is not obvious to many, but it is nevertheless true. Observe what has taken place in the middle east since we invaded. Saudi Arabia has risked civil war to reign in Wahabism, whereas before the Iraq war they politely took and ignored our calls. Libya has done a political about face and has normalized relations with us. Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon. The U.A.E. has permitted us to conduct strikes on their territory. Our entire relationship with the middle east has changed to allow the US more influence in the region, and to place Wahabism and terrorism on the defensive rather than allowing it to remain, as it was, something that was blithely tolerated.
- You might want to sign each section you created. Anyway, my response to your triumphal glee at the "results"? Mussolini made the trains run on time. We have the blood of hundreds of thousands and the ruined lives of millions on our hands as a result of this perfidy. ħuman
02:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- First of all, there is no triumphal glee. You confuse a willingness to argue and belief in correctness for self-righteous enthusiasm. That I am here at all and putting forward arguments rather than slogans is evidence that I have already accepted that there is something I've missed, and am prepared to be corrected by force of argument.
- Getting to your point. Your criticism is valid. But I did not create this section as an argument, but merely as an observation that I think most people generally miss, particularly people who take the view that Iraq was built on Bush's stupidity/religious zeal. The argument here, then, is not that this justifies the war, but rather that there are complexities to the situation that the arguments thus far presented have not taken into account. I hope thereby to pique people's curiosity and get them to examine my argument on the assumption that there might be an interesting point of view therein. BlueSprite 12:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Caveats
The US have nevertheless made some mistakes. Failing to predict the influence of Iran was of course the most fundamental, critical, and costly mistake that was made. Other mistakes include the failure to predict the insurgency, and the failure to properly prepare the armed forces for an occupation, something which to this day has not been corrected. BlueSprite 13:32, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- How tactful. There's also:
- Completely ignoring the Pentagon's requests for additional men and materials, since Dick Cheney KNEW the NeoCons' plan for a 'lightweight army' would work.
- True. This represents a serious failure. One of the most serious, in fact, but this is what I was referring to when I said: "failure to properly prepare the armed forces for an occupation." BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Ignoring the largest collection of antiwar protests IN HISTORY.
- On the one hand, protests are irrelevant, since a nation goes to war when it has to. On the other hand, it is absolutely the responsibility of a commander in chief in a democracy to explain the cause. A failure to rally your people to war once it has been decided it is necessary is one of the most serious failures a leader can be guilty of.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- There was ZERO 'need' for the Iraq invasion. Saddam was no 'imminent threat' to the US, no matter how much BushCo screamed about mushroom cloudes over Washington DC. --Gulik 13:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Outing Valeria Plame as a CIA agent in vengeance for her husband's failure to agree with Bush.
- Regrettable, and harsh on the person. Certainly there was a failure of leadership somewhere, but I don't regard this event as particularly significant in terms of the argument to go to war or not.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- "De-Batthification" of the army and government, giving the country a HUGE mass of unarmed young men with guns and a grudge against the US.
- Very probably a serious tactical failure.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Apparent total failure to predict the vicious Shiite vs. Sunni infighting that broke out the moment Saddam vanished.
- I think I mentioned this.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Allowing Al Qaeda to get a foothold in Iraq. (Hussein was an evil baby-eating dictator, but he was a _secular_ evil baby-eater, with no use for AlQ's fundamentalism.)
- Actually, I regard this and AQ's subsequent defeat in Iraq as a tremendous achievement. Whether or not it was planned is not clear to me, but I definitely think it's a good thing.
- Botching the initial invasion. Allowing hospitals, museums, and a warehouse full of explosive to be looted was rather poor form. But at least the Oil Ministry was safe, so we know where Bush's priorities were!
- A tactical mistake, but in my view an understandable one. I wouldn't fire any generals over this.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Then you are a VASTLY more forgiving man than I am. I'd say Operation Iraqi Liberation deserved a round of Force Chokes for everyone from Bush on down. --Gulik 13:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Abu Ghraib. Hey, Iraqis! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, only less competent!
- Clearly a serious mistake.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- The summary execution of Saddam Hussein for just ONE of his many crimes, presumably to shut him up before he could say anything embarrassing. (I'm mildly amazed he GOT a trial.)
- This hardly seems relevant to me. He was no longer a player and clearly guilty of some nasty things. Perhaps there was some injustice, perhaps not, I don't see this as having any real bearing on the military, political, economic, or social situation in Iraq.BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Massive incompetence and corruption among the contractors the US hired.
- Unfortunately, we went in with a gutted logistics network. Bill Clinton felt we no longer needed logistics in the same way as before. Bush should probably have rebuilt the network. Mercenaries are generally not pleasant, but they seem to have done the job for the most part. That there needed to be a review of terms is clear.
- Right, because Clinton was President in 2003. And he attacked Iraq on 9/12/2001, leaving no TIME for any sort of build up. Sheesh. --Gulik 13:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Sending soldiers to do police work.
- Shall I go on? Because I can. Oh, HOW I can. I'm sure there are ways BushCo could've screwed this up worse, but it's hard to think of many. --Gulik 02:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- There are clearly mistakes. I mentioned a few of them myself. I acknowledge that there are more. But unless you have something to say about the nature of the threat, the diplomatic or legal situation on the international scene, my argument stands. That there were mistakes does not change the fact that the US was justified in going in, and that it has had serious, fundamental, and positive results. BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- What threat? Hussein was not going anywhere! Unless you know something both the UN and the Corporate Media have missed. --Gulik 13:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- I gave a pretty detailed case above. That there is room for debate is clear, but I don't think "Hussein was not going anywhere" is enough for me to concede any particular point at this time.BlueSprite 13:34, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- What threat? Hussein was not going anywhere! Unless you know something both the UN and the Corporate Media have missed. --Gulik 13:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- There are clearly mistakes. I mentioned a few of them myself. I acknowledge that there are more. But unless you have something to say about the nature of the threat, the diplomatic or legal situation on the international scene, my argument stands. That there were mistakes does not change the fact that the US was justified in going in, and that it has had serious, fundamental, and positive results. BlueSprite 12:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Response to BlueSprite from EMC
That the US-led invasion of Iraq was justified so the United States could develop avenues of hard power and influence in the Middle East to which Iraq was a key target due to its geopolitical influence is nonsense, and this intention has clearly backfired. We opened up a front for Iranian-supported proxy insurgents to attack our troops (which is evidence of Iran's continuing resentment against the US despite our ousting of Saddam). An Iranian political analyst even noted that, "Iran is now being challenged by a superpower in Iraq – in that sense Iran is not a winner. The Americans are building four major bases in Iraq, one only [10 miles] from the Iranian border, with two McDonald's and everything."[1] So far as neighboring nations are concerned, Iraq's neighbors have expressed feelings of concern with the US' dominant presence so close to their borders. Though feelings of pro-radical Islam are dwindling, feelings of anti-Westernism are flourishing due to (drumroll!) American presence in the Middle East, especially Iraq.
- We have hard power in the region now. I don't see anything in your argument to suggest that this is not the case. US failure to calculate Iran's influence was clearly a critical mistake, one that I believe I mentioned. Even so, the US seems to be dealing acceptably with Iran, even if the confrontation has led to a situation that the US did not envision, and even though the situation is not optimal. That the US has hard power in the region and that this has resulted in influence more broadly in the Middle East still seems certain to me. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
In our shortsighted attempt to gain so-called influence and avenues of hard power in the Middle East, we've lost face with countries such as Russia, China, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia (a predominantly Muslim nation), Pakistan, and India, as well as with the United Nations and the Arab League, who have all condemned the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Though some might not have foreseen the influence of Iran, the outcry of these nations was foreseeable by all. In the face of the international community, we flaunted a middle finger.
- I don't know what "losing face" means either in the semantic context of international relations or in the context of its real effect on US influence. Russia, China, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, India, the United Nations and the Arab League have done nothing to frustrate our ambitions or goals in the region. Indeed, they have remained largely neutral or at least marginally cooperative. You may be making a point about political capital, but of those you mentioned, US pursuits in Iraq have only significantly effected relations with Russia and China. But with those countries, the sum of the change has been that they have been less restrained in their pursuit of their own interests in their own spheres of influence, spheres which are completely disjoint from the Middle East. Yes there has been a cost, if the goal is changing the status quo in the Middle East, then nothing that you've mentioned supports the view that US actions have lessened influence in the Middle East. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
If part of the intent of the invasion was for the US to gain influence in the region, I must question the staunch support of the United Kingdom and what drove the UK to back the US. Understandably, influence in the region would be an effective tool against terrorism, but terrorism is a nonissue on the invasion of Iraq. Thus far, we've stirred resentment between Iraqis and Jordanians and Iraqis and Kuwaitis, made Kurdistan independence more difficult (which would bring about a much greater peace in the region) with our refusal to consider soft partitioning Iraq, creating a terrorist breeding ground, and we've been gradually losing the support of those in the Middle East who initially supported the war with our prolonged and bloody occupation.
- You're assuming here that the US goal was to root out terrorists in Iraq. As I said, it was, in fact, to root out terrorism in the Middle East in general. It is clear that the US invasion has indeed changed the minds of many Middle Eastern powers in how they pursue terrorism, almost universally on terms that are favorable to US interests.
That the invasion could have even given us a foothold in the region is a thought, but it clearly has not been the case, and so it will be nothing more than a failed intention which has been thrown back into our face tenfold.
It would be safe to say that diplomacy failed as well if we had actually allowed the weapons inspections and diplomatic negotiations to continue. Instead, we invaded during the middle of the peace process and uprooted the efforts of the international community to deal with Iraq's doings in a responsible manner.
- Weapons inspections had nothing to do with the diplomacy I'm talking about. I'm talking about trying to convince Middle Eastern powers to pursue terrorists within their respective borders. These efforts ran into a brick wall. The weapons inspectors do have a bearing on the legal case, and in that regard the inspections definitely reinforced the already solid basis for the legal case to go to war. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
That we could not convince any of the nations in the region to cooperate with the US in the elimination of Al Quaeda and terrorist organizations in general is true in some cases, but is not a justification for invading Iraq which only financially supported terrorism against Turkey and Iran (which are themselves state sponsors of terrorism) and expressed support for terrorism against Israel (no surprise there). According to the US State Department, Iran is and has been for some time the number one state sponsor of terrorism. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsored terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorist activities. Additionally, that Iraq supported Al Qaeda is obviously false, and that it actively funded terrorist attacks against the United States, like the supposed supporting of Abdul Rahman Yasin, is untrue (Iraq imprisoned Yasin and offered to hand him over to the US multiple times).
- I never made the case that Iraq supported AQ. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Ousting the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, his predecessors, and eventual successors, is a matter which is also not justification for the invasion of Iraq. In some pro-war arguments, it seems to be a supplementary, as though this condition's presence makes it a lot like killing two birds with one stone. Again, we are not the World Police. It is not our duty to oust autocratic rulers or corrupt regimes (for if it were, we should find ourselves in numerous other countries aside from Iraq based on this).
- I never made the case that the tyranny of Hussein was a justification, just that it added weight to a decision that was already necessary, and that it was a pleasant side effect. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
To date, there exists no evidence that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was, for a period of time, attempting to gain WMDs, but to assume that an attempt would have been a guarantee of success is beyond logic, especially in the case of Iraq. Additionally, this rationale assumes that if they obtained WMDs, they would present a threat to us. This meets the definition of preventive war, which, "aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary ... Due to the speculative nature of preventive war, in which the adversary may or may not be a future threat, preventive war is considered an act of aggression in international law."[2]
- That there was no evidence that Iraq was in possession of wmd is patently false. While only a minor and non-essential part of my case, I will argue this, but at a later date. I will need to muster some documents and take a moment to review the situation, but I'm feeling a little lazy at the moment. I am getting the impression that you did not read my argument, since I never posited that this was a core cause for going to war, or that it was anything but something that lent weight to the legal case. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
If the cease-fire you refer to is the attack against the Kurds (I could be mistaken; if you can recall another violated cease-fire, please correct me), it should be noted that this occurred over sixteen years ago. Also, I have never heard of a US leader using the violation of the cease-fire in '92 as reason for going into Iraq -- or of Iraq's belligerence (mostly towards itself) as a reason either. It is hardly even supportive of the claim that Iraq presented a "threat".
- It is not. I was referring to the terms of the ceasefire signed with the US under the auspices of the UN. These terms were violated repeatedly. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
While I concede to the fact the Iraq did impede on various US interests in the region, I must reiterate that Iraq at the time did not present a threat. It may have presented a minor potential threat, but we were not, while our leaders were discussing and preparing the invasion, threatened. Only a strong sense of nationalistic paranoia would cause one to believe that presenting a potential threat in the future would be an appropriate condition for invasion. emc [TALK]
- Again, I never argued that Iraq presented a threat. Rather, I argued that the political situation in the Middle East as a whole presented a threat sufficient to justify war. While it may seem somewhat arbitrary in this light, going to war with a region is something that's never been done before, and I think if one accepts this assumption, then it is reasonable to select Iraq as the specific target because of its particularly unpleasant nature and its strategic position as a point that borders a large portion of the Middle East. There are other factors that would make waging war on other nations in the region counterproductive, particularly Saudi Arabia, which, as I noted, was the main center of terrorism in the region. BlueSprite 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Strong against
It's surprising to me how few are familiar with just war theory, which, in summation, defines a just military engagement as one of national defense. Even in that circumstance, the continuation of a military campaign against a belligerent nation has to have been provoked by and mantain the follow conditions:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
- There's a number of problems with this: When the damage inflicted by the aggressor is certain and grave, a situation has generally arisen in which the balance of the conflict has tipped towards one side or another.
- I would posit that rather than showing other courses of action to be impractical or inneffective, you must show that the consequences of following those courses of action are more serious than going to war.
- Prospects of success are unfortunately irrelevant. When it is time for a nation to go to war, it must fight. One of the most morally objectionable things a government can do, in my view, is to fail to resist a physical assault on its survival as a state.
- Your point about evils is really only valid from a universalist point of view. If you're coming at it from a survivalist point of view, then as soon as the survival of your state is threatened, it is your responsibility to use any means necessary to protect the existence of your state as the only authority which can legitimately preserve the freedoms of souls for which your state is responsible.
- This just war theory is just one point of view among many about when it is morally acceptable to wage war. It seems to be the point of view of the United Nations, which in my view is one of the reasons that there is a limit to how effective the UN can be. Please do not infer from this that I think the UN is worthless, because it is incredibly valuable, just not as an international lawmaking body.
- Further, all of this ignores the tremendous complexity of identifying threats to a state, the enormity of the number of players in the international scene, and the depth of calculations that people invested in the defense of a country must make, even outside of war or even the desire or immediate possibility of go to war. In short, this theory is fine if you assume that all nations are basically good, and only make aggressive national moves in a blind and lashing manner when they cease to be so. The reality is vastly more complex.
- Instead, I think a better theory is based on the principle that the only valid reason to go to war is to achieve a better peace. Thus, the only way for a war to be just is if the cost of achieving a better peace is likely to be less than the cost of abiding the current one. In this event, for a war to be just, it must be shown that the consequences of not going to war are greater than doing so, which generally means that the current peace cannot be improved except through war. BlueSprite 13:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- The main point to be made is that no act of aggression was made against the United States by Iraq, which is a primary justification for military action. If the prospects of success are irrelevant (whether they're irrelevant because they're unachievable or ambiguous as is the case of Iraq) particularly if the survival of your state is threatened, then I must again say that the initial invasion of Iraq is unjust, for our survival was not threatened.
- I would have to agree that demonstrating the consequences of following alternative courses of action are more serious than going to war. I suppose it would follow a question such as, "What can war accomplish that diplomacy, economic sanctioning, and other nonviolent methods cannot?"
- Just war theory itself gives more complex consideration to specific matters though. Michael Walzer and Noam Chomsky have each written elaborately on situations, past and present, with the application of just war theory, particularly with the war in Iraq. These four contentions can get surprisingly specific. Furthermore, attentiveness to just war theory ought to be a prerequisite to any nation considering using military force, especially since much of just war theory is adopted by the United Nations to which the US and the UK are signatories.
- The concept of using war to achieve a better peace (to whom? I ask) is a gamble -- one which happens to involve human life. I'm assuming that your earlier reference to the irrelevant prospect of success applied to the nation on the defensive (whose only real objective is to fight for survival), but I'll put this in your court: if the prospect of success is as undefined and subjective as "creating a better peace" for the aggressor, than the prospect of success for both sides is thus irrelevant (which if applied to the case of Iraq further demonstrates the butchery of the war from the beginning). --EMc 17:08, 6 December 2008 (EST)
It's quite evident that Iraq has remained a relatively dormant military power for the last fifteen years, with the exception of the Al-Anfal campaign and the '92 attacks in Kurdistan (an issue which is not at all topical to the justification for the Iraq War). Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States and in no historical situation has ever 'attacked' the United States in any sense of the term. That they were a threat to their neighbors post-Desert Storm is arguable, yet not an immediate concern of the United States.
So far as diplomacy and sanctioning are concerned, I can safely say that the extent of these measures was not exhausted yet, and so to have launched a preventive strike against Iraq before these measures were exhausted is a violation of the United Nations charter (which seem to be a part of the Bush Doctrine), to which the United States is a signatory (some diplomats seem to be forgetting that as well).
The concept of "success" in Iraq is too easy to parody. Let's not forget the impatient call of "Mission Accomplished" by the Bush Administration despite the ambiguous definition of "success" in the botched military campaign that is the Iraq War.
In last contention, I suppose you could justify the Iraq War if you were to sincerely believe it was the duty of the United States to overstep the United Nations and be dubbed the "World Police". It'd be misplaced of me to apologize for the apparent religious origin of the fourth condition in just war theory (given it was a Vatican-endorsed concept), but I would if I could.
Thus far, the "four ways a country can loses its sovereignty according to international law" have been refuted. Iraq's only experimental nuclear facility was summarily destroyed by Israeli airstrikes in '81. There is still no existing evidence to support the claim that Iraq has been attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction since then. Iraq became a vaccuum for terrorism in Baqubah and Tal Afar only after the ignition of the powder keg by the US-led invasion in '03.
In addition, that Iraq lost sovereignty is wholly untrue (see above), and even if by the definition under international law it could have, it was in no way a decision for United States leaders to make.
The last remaining justification for the invasion of Iraq is Iraq's supposed violation of UN resolution 1441. During the United Nations' investigation and utilization of diplomacy and economic sanctions, the impatient United States invaded with the sole support of the United Kingdom (the US claimed that Poland was an "ally" two days before they withdrew their support) which was, as already noted, a violation of UN policy in itself.
The United States was wrong in jus ad bellum and is still wrong jus in bello. --EMc 00:19, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- As a big Michael Walzer fan--well done, well argued. PFoster 00:21, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Another strong against
1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons Violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit.
- Pretty much moot since Israel blew up their reactor in what, the early 80s?
2. Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations Iran, Kuwait.
- Iran, armed and encouraged by the US. Kuwait, armed by the US (previously) and not discouraged to do so. Also, that was over a decade before we invaded them.
3. Genocide: 'nuff said.
- Bad, yes. Solution, invasion and occupation? No. PS, if we are talking about the Kurds, and I think we are, Hussein gassed them with poison (WMD) supplied by the US that was intended to be used against the Iranians (see above).
4. Playing hosts to terrorists etc. Also 'nuff said, it was a retirement village for terrorists.
- Saddam paying Palestinian survivors of suicide bombers cash, abhorrent. Solution, invasion and occupation? No.
The West succeeded in ending apartheid in South Africa without firing a single bullet or dropping a single bomb, once serious public pressure resulted in financial disassociation. The (illegal) invasion and occupation, based on proven lies, violated all modern international norms, thus removing its moral imperative (points 3 and 4). Isolating Iraq economically (as they already were militarily) and putting strong international pressure on Hussein to clean up his act would have done the job - in my opinion. If Iraq was even the most pressing issue of the time. Again, in my opinion, the most pressing issue of the time was getting the Bush criminal conspiracy out of the White House. ħuman
02:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Random reply to a comment above: "Iraq was ... collateral damage". How cold can you be? How would you like to be "collateral damage" in someone else's geopolitical gaming? ħuman
02:12, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Remember, it's only 'deaths' if they're white. Brown-skinned folks are just "collateral damage". --Gulik 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Bush knew it.
BBC Sez: Report concludes no WMD in Iraq
on the other hand,
Fox News says: Whoohoo! They FOUND SOME! In your FACE you filthy peacenik traitors!
“”The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.
|
....Well, drat. --Gulik 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Al Qaeda weren't in Iraq until we LET them in
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed --Gulik 23:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)