Heading into war in IRAQ

To delve into another part about the war on iraq. Discuss about the act on going the war that was waged to throw down Saddam Hussein.

What I do not get is about these people who said that diplomacy should have been use. That any war is evil and should not have been done at all. It is ridiculuous because Saddam was laughing his ass off each time negotiators talk to him. He wasn't a reasonable man at all.

I feel that if George Bush Senior wasn't such a chicken and went all the way into Iraq and thrown down Saddam then in the early 90's, we would never have this current situation with iraq.

Long story short: take the act of hammering a nail into a wall. You can sit down and talk about it, which will take time and only get you so far, but will help you decide what angle and where on the wall you want the nail to be, and how to hammer it. Or you can just get up and do it without preparation.

When you get up and do it, be it after discussion concerning method, or after just getting up, there are two ways of doing it. Either you can be gentle, take your time, and be precise, or you can whack it (which usually happens when there was no discussions).

End line, if you whack it, you get the job done, but odds are you have a nice crack in the wall, a bit of plaster on the floor, and a bent nail. It gets the job done, it takes less time, but the chances of making a mess you'll have to clean up (which can be a pain and rather expensive for a crack in the wall) are increased.

That's sort of what you have in today's Iraq.

On the other hand, if you take your time it can be frustrating, but you can concentrate on precise aspects of the problem and get it done with a minimum of hassle, and a clean result (ideally) though occasionally even a patient man cracks the wall and gets some plaster on the floor.

In other words, diplomacy and a multi-lateral approach takes time, perhaps more than it should, but at the end of the day it gets the job done.

So does the US way, but there's a clean up job after, and that's usually even more annoying.

Now let's talk about how you can mess up the clean up job even more by pretending there is no clean up job...

If I may paraphrase Matt Ridgway:

"The real issues are whether the power of Western Civilization, as human reason has permitted it to flower in our own beloved lands, shall defy and defeat Islam; whether the rule of men who shoot their prisoners, enslave their citizens, and deride the dignity of man, shall displace the rule of those to whom the individual and his individual rights are sacred; whether we are to survive with human reason to guide and lead us, or to perish in the dead existence of a world dragged back to the Dark Ages by Islamofascist fanatics."

Which entirely ignores the question of why they're "Islamofascist fanatics".

>>2
So I guess that over a decade of "waiting and talking" isn't long enough and that even after that waiting another year to "Rush" to war is too sudden.

>>4

Ooo, nice scare quotes.  Not that it matters, but they're Islamofascist fanatics because that's what they've always been.  They haven't changed in 1300 years; they remain incapable of civilization, as is manifestly obvious at a glance.  To the extent that they can have organizations meriting the use of the word "society" at all, they invariably become "Lord of the Flies" with automatic weapons instead of spears as soon as the European colonists leave or the oil money runs out, sometimes long before.

The important question here is, why is it that the West has advanced and become civilized, while the Arab world, rolling in ill-gotten oil wealth, remains filthy, ignorant, diseased, stuck in the dark ages, at war with its neighbors wherever they are in contact with another culture, and hell-bent on dragging the rest of the human race kicking and screaming back to the good old days of the Iron Age?

>>5
QFT. I mean Saddam was an expert in getting the US muddled up in United Nation red tape.

Point of the matter was that if he didn't have any WMD (or so the evidence now points out) why couldn't he be opened to the inspectors instead of all the military escorts?

Not to mention the fact that the US OWED the Iraqi people from the 1st Gulf war by not helping with the Kurdish rebellion. The kurdish uprising showed that the Iraqi people (well some of them) were capable to changing their country's fate on their own but it wasn't enough. They needed outside help.

People talk about peaceful revolutions and so on. That won't freaking happen in Iraq. Blood will be spilled no matter what.

>>6
That's because of the Arab's world stupid stubborness to keep religion a focal point of their lives.

Look at every developing nation and their focus on religion. The more developed their are (ie The USA) the less the focus of religion in the society (ok maybe not now with Bush and all).

If the Muslim world *had* kept religion as the focal point of their lives they would be so weak an uncivilized in the first place.
For example, look at Turkey when it had religion. Also, Persia and Arabia and so on.
They all lost power because they didn't have this Pan-Islam thing that they are so nostalgic about now.
Now they've degenerated into tribes because they considered their clan more important than their religion. If they had actually been united, they would be very dangerous.

s/would/would not/

>>9

Those are very serious allegations you're making.  Can you back them up with evidence?

>>1

Remember what Bush Sr said about why he didn't move in and overthrow Saddam? The results of his son doing have made daddy Bush look like a damn prophet. All the bad shit Bush Sr predicted? It's happened.

The problem isn't that Bush Sr was a chicken. It's that Bush Jr is a moron.

>>12
We should care about the opinions of terrorism-financing Arab countries *why*, again? Or are you saying that democracy is just too darn messy, and a mass-murdering dictator is better for stability?

In another meaning of what >>13 is basically is the people better off with a dictator all their life? Even if should Saddam be left alone and die off, his son would take over and he is no better off than his father.

Saddam Hussien was only a threat to his own people. He didn't have  WMD's at all, and the inspectors were actually doing their job of proving it, which was unacceptable for Bush. If they had proven WMD's were destroyed, Bush's public justification for war would vansih, and he and his buddies in Project for a New American Century (google it) had already decided to take Saddam out. Instead they kept saying they had "secret" evidence and casting doubt on the whole process to try and drum up support for their illegal war.

The reason we couldn't just say "oh, we're gonna take saddam out cause he's on our list of anti-US dictators and he's on a huge supply of oil we would like for strategic geopolitical reasons" was because that would be illegal. It would be waging aggressive war which is partly what we convicted the nazi's of in the Nuremburg trials. That was the only way we could get the UK on board, as well. Since they actually take war crimes stuff somewhat seriously in that country.

Bumped to compare the quality of debate in 2005 to now in 2007...

The whole idea of an "illegal" war just makes me laugh. What's an occupied country going to do, go to the Supreme Court of the Earth?

The real issue is of motives. Sure, Saddam was an evil bastard, but our government really doesn't care about any of that. We attacked him now because it was in the financial interests of several policy-makers. When Bush sr. was president, it was in his best interest to make Saddam a trading partner, which he did. People just didn't hear about his crimes against humanity back then because that would have made our own government look bad. Now the truth comes out because the Project For a New American Century, and the neocons needed to get some amount of the general population to support military action in the middle east to justify the war.

>>17
See the Nuremberg trials.

WOO HOO BUMPING OLDEST THREAD IN /newpol/

I'm not sure what the OP is saying.  He was already heading into Iraq?  Is he still alive?

>>19
Fail. The occupiers set the law and set those trials up. Also the US occupation did west germany a world of good whilst the soviets you worship fucked the country up.

>>22
I see that he's a soshalist because he doesn't agree with your retardation, and you seem to think the marshall aids etc. were some sort of acts of goodwill. Hmm...

>>23
The Marshall Plan aid WAS an act of goodwill, wasted on ungrateful trash.

>>23
I see your butthurt retardation makes you a libertaryan and LOL BIUSH IS SOSHALIST, i also lick assholes clean and shove things up my ass.

>>15
That was the only way we could get the UK on board, as well. Since they actually take war crimes stuff somewhat seriously in that country.


lulz"1!! You really believe that? The UK sells weapons to third world dictators all the time. GET THIS THREW YOUR HEAD YOU JEW MOTHER FUCKERS!!!! SADDAM WAS A USA CILENT WHO WAS THERE ATTACK DOG AGAINST IRAN IN THE 80!!!!!!!

the invasion has nothing to do with overthowing the ZOMG evil Saddam. It was about grabing oil.

>>26
actually Saddam was always a Soviet puppet, but since caps lock is cruise control for cool I will let you continue entertaining us.  have you considered using even MOAR exclamation points?  I herd that if you use enough of them, it can make factually incorrect positions become correct just through sheer nerve.

Saddam a Soviet Puppet? Thats why he was given Chemical weapons, and arms to attack Iraq. Do you think Iraq would even dare attack the far bigger Iran without aid?

>>28
Ever actually seen any pictures of the Iraqi military, prewar?

Notice all the Kalashnikov rifles?  Notice all the T62 tanks and MiG jet fighters?

Where do you suppose those came from?

Were you aware that the Desert Storm offensive in 1991 had to be delayed several days to give the Soviets time to pull 5000 Spetznaz advisors out of the country, who had been training Saddam's army?  How do you suppose that came about?

Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists was ALWAYS a Soviet puppet state, just like Syria, Libya, and Egypt before Mubarak threw out the Soviet "advisors."

Who gave Saddam "chemical weapons?"  What is your documentation for this claim, other than "derp derp everybody knows, derp derp CHIMPY MCBUSHITLER LIED!  NO WAR FOR OIL, BAWWWWWWWWW"

The French and Germans built chemical plants in Iraq, yes.  I am not aware of anyone selling chemical munitions to him.  Then again, do you suppose that it's possible that he had bright people working for him who were able to manufacture them without assistance?  Mustard gas is WWI technology.  It's not exactly ZOOMJ 21ST CNTRY BLEEDING EDGE HI TECH OMG.

>>23
RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEPRAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP RAEP

>>29
| I am not aware of anyone selling chemical munitions to him.
They did.  French and German outlets allowed them to get what they needed for chemical munitions.  They knew damn well what it was for.  Furthermore, the US had knowledge that Iraq possessed the weaponry, but continued to provide financial, military, and intelligence support in their war against Iran even after Saddam started using them.

The Soviets did provide a larger share of weapons to Iraq (and, in fact, to Iran).   But we were feeding them dollars and intelligence, turning a blind eye to Saddam's war crimes, AND supplying Iran with armaments at the same fucking time.

To your charge that Iraq was a soviet puppet state, that is patently untrue.  Effectively, both Iraq and Iran (and pretty much the entire Middle East) has been able to play a game of mild extortion of BOTH powers.  Assistance, whether economic or military, was given quite liberally from both of the superpowers to make sure that neither gained an upper hand.  Do not forget that it was thanks in large part to the support of the US government that Saddam was able to solidify power after his Bathist coup.

If you buy weapons from the soviet union, you're a soviet puppet hurr

>>32
Saddam never bought weapons from the USSR.  They were given to him as military aid to a client regime.

Do you know the difference between "give" and "buy?"

Arabs take education very seriously, even their thugs respect and acknowlege the power of technology which could be compared to the contempt western "gangs" have for anyone with a PHD. During the great game and colonialism when they were under the west's heal in the 19th century they quickly adapted their islamic universities to the changing world, the Ottoman empire for a time invested heavily in keeping up with the industrial revolution. Now decades later and after Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people and extensively during the Iraq-Iran war it is absurd to assume Saddam did not possess them let alone let alone had the ability to produce them.

>>29


What a fucking idiot

>>35
And you're a big poopyhead.

Now, did you have anything useful to contribute, or are you conceding all of my points--that Saddam was a Soviet puppet, that the Soviets armed him, that indeed it was the KGB who overthrew the pro-Western King Ghazi in 1958 and put the Ba'ath Party in power?

>>36

Look if someone says the holocaust is a hoax, I am not going to debate it with him. Saddam was certainly not a Soviet puppet. He used to be a CIA hitman for gods sake. typical Yank. Talking shit about stuff you know nothing about.

>>37
No one's saying the Holocaust is a hoax, except maybe you.

Iraq under the Ba'athists was all but a member of the Warsaw Pact.

"CIA hitman?"  What are you smoking?  Do you have a source for that, or are you just making this shit up as you go along?