Just another day in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fallout-NL said:
I think the main difference between murder and genocide is the number.





No, but the way in which you're disagreeing with Sentry makes it sound a little bit like that. Though you're right of course if you're simply arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

no, it's intent. For there to be a charge of genocide, there has to be intent on the part of the perpetrator, to destroy, in whole or in part an ethnic or religious group. arguably the Clinton admin did have this intent when it imposed its sanctions regime and banned powdered milk, baby formula, and life saving medicine from Iraq, claiming it was a dual use item. But it would be extremely hard to prove.
 
theignoramus said:
and Admiral Michael Mullen, conceded that DeBaathification fucked up the country ,fuelled sectarian tension, and fuelled the insurgency. It probably even provoked it. AND the invasion spawned Al qaeda in Iraq, which didnt exist under Saddam.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem with deBaathification was that if you wanted a job, you had to be int he Baath party. Eliminating government bureaucrats and the general officer corps in military just due to Baath party affiliation killed the infrastructure.

Sectarian tension was exploding the minute Saddam fell. At that point, the various factions started to jockey for positions of power. That's why it was so hard to come up with a coaltion government that had a mix of Sunni's Shi'ites and Kurds.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a power grab. Most of the Muslim world didn't even like Saddam, who they saw as a secular leader anyway. It doesn't even share the same reason of being upset that real Al-Qaeda does, which was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
 
theignoramus said:
no, it's intent. For there to be a charge of genocide, there has to be intent on the part of the perpetrator, to destroy, in whole or in part an ethnic or religious group. arguably the Clinton admin did have this intent when it imposed its sanctions regime and banned powdered milk, baby formula, and life saving medicine from Iraq, claiming it was a dual use item. But it would be extremely hard to prove.
Click to expand...


That's what I said though right? There's intent both in murder and genocide. Though in the case of (the last war in) Iraq you wouldn't call it genocide (I was just trying to illustrate a point), but when you consider the actual reasons for starting another war in the middle east, those statistics of civilian death and the current mess become a fair bit harder to swallow. And I think it's disrespectful to just chalk it up to collateral damage or 'killing'.
 
Syria's government is doing far worse things to its own people on a daily basis. Maybe you should direct your anger there.
 
Menelaus said:
Syria's government is doing far worse things to its own people on a daily basis. Maybe you should direct your anger there.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if we could. Truthfully the only power who could something is the one no one in the region would think to ask (unless they were a creative member of the Syrian Free Officers Movement).
 
Even though getting rid of Sadaam could be argued was just (obviously), you have to admit that's not the main reason we went over there. I don't believe for a second America is that generous as to go there just to free people otherwise we'd be doing it everywhere.
 
Angry Fork said:
Even though getting rid of Sadaam could be argued was just (obviously), you have to admit that's not the main reason we went over there. I don't believe for a second America is that generous as to go there just to free people otherwise we'd be doing it everywhere.
Click to expand...

Although there was some invocation of freedom in the lead-up, that justification was largely promoted post hoc after the primary reason, WMDs, turned out to be baseless.
 
Angry Fork said:
Even though getting rid of Sadaam could be argued was just (obviously), you have to admit that's not the main reason we went over there. I don't believe for a second America is that generous as to go there just to free people otherwise we'd be doing it everywhere.
Click to expand...


Exactly. All I'm saying.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
No, it wasn't. Saying it was after the fact, implies that the viewpoint was not genuine, which it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Colin Powell and his white powder built from mobile weapon labs, CIA 'slam dunk' case, and constant bashing of the Hans Blix weapons inspection team when they couldn't find any damn evidence of WMD, the whole Nigerian Uranium going to Iraq insanity with subsequent destruction of Valerie Plame's cover in revenge for Joseph Wilson's criticism of the entire claim.

The drumbeat of war was that Saddam was an imminent threat and needed a pre-emptive strike to assure the safety of the world.

Seriously Manos what are you remembering?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...es/b24970.html
 
Since we're no longer deployed there, officially, I wonder if people will start ignoring Iraqi news, much like they do news about violence in Africa, other Middle East countries, Eastern Europe, etc.
 
Dude Abides said:
Nope. Nearly everyone who isn't ideologically invested in justifying the invasion agrees with that account.
Click to expand...

You mean everyone who was ideologically involved and invested in trying to oppose it. Once again you are trying to pass your opinion off as fact when it isn't. Just because the far left says it doesn't make it fact.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
You mean everyone who was ideologically involved and invested in trying to oppose it. Once again you are trying to pass your opinion off as fact when it isn't. Just because the far left says it doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...


You haven't really adressed any of our arguments here in any case.


Do you really, honestly believe that the war in Iraq was started to save those poor Iraqi's from Saddam's oppression? And that that was the sole reason? That Cheney and Bush would sleep better at night, knowing that Iraq now had democracy?

Come on man, you can't be that naive.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
You mean everyone who was ideologically involved and invested in trying to oppose it. Once again you are trying to pass your opinion off as fact when it isn't. Just because the far left says it doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...

I don't know man. You're not remebering any of....

Colin Powell and his white powder built from mobile weapon labs, CIA 'slam dunk' case, constant bashing of the Hans Blix weapons inspection team when they couldn't find any damn evidence of WMD, the whole Nigerian Uranium going to Iraq insanity with subsequent destruction of Valerie Plame's cover in revenge for Joseph Wilson's criticism of the entire claim.

The drumbeat of war was that Saddam was an imminent threat and needed a pre-emptive strike to assure the safety of the world.

One Source that tracks how the administration tried to distance itself from its war rhetoric after the fact: http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...es/b24970.html
 
We went into Iraq under false pretenses. Well, at least the general public were told falsehoods.

We broke Iraq. We tried to fix it, in our American, well-intentioned, but flawed for the area way.

And now that we're out, people are falling back on old grudges and conflicts that were suppressed by Saddam's brutal regime, and only quieted by American occupation.
 
theignoramus said:
there was never this level of sectarian bloodletting, ever, in the history of Iraq prior to the US invasion. Did the US uncork a fucking mess that Saddam, in large part created? Yes. Does that means it is less responsible for outbreak of sectarian carnage and bringing Al qaeda into Iraq? Hell no.
Click to expand...

Iran-Iraq war had a lot of religiosity to it.
 
Azih said:
I

One Source that tracks how the administration tried to distance itself from its war rhetoric after the fact: http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...es/b24970.html
Click to expand...

Center For American Progress is hardly an unbiased source. It's in their interest to project that view, along with he did it for oil, for dad. I honestly believe Bush did it for a combination of reasons, a desire to give Iraqi's freedom from Saddam and an honest belief that there were currently WMDs (which we know would have been restarted as soon as sanctions ended) .Cheney was an still is an asshole who had his own reasons, but not I don't think they where the same as Bush's.

Not to say the people at CAP are bad ( I have a good friend who works there).
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Center For American Progress is hardly an unbiased source.
Click to expand...
The citations are legit. The Bush Administration pushed HARD on the idea that Saddam was an imminent threat with WMD, possibly nuclear, definitely biological and that, along with 9/11 links, constituted the drumbeat to War. The source just highlights the WMD hysteria that the administration promoted and then tried to back away from.
 
Myoclonic Jerk said:
Not even Saddam have killed that much..
Click to expand...

Serious question, does any legitimate data exist showing the number of people killed under Saddam's rule? Like, straight up cold-blood murdered type killings. I'm assuming it's sort of a mystery. I know there is the al-Anfal Campaign and the Halabja gas attack, but otherwise I haven't heard specifics.
 
BobsRevenge said:
Iran-Iraq war had a lot of religiosity to it.
Click to expand...

It really didn't. It was border disputes, control of oil resources, and a way for Iraq to keep its Shia majority (not a supporter of Saddam) down. Nothing to do with religion at all. Iran just used religious fervour as its trump tactic.

A lot of what happens in Iraq isn't religous in source, it's frankly tribal with religion being the main way to tell the tribes apart. It's like the Balkans.

Of course extremist Wahhabi sectarian hate is a reality but that's a pretty recent Saudi gift to the entire Muslim world not anything indigenous to Iraq really.
 
Azih said:
I don't know man. You're not remebering any of....

Colin Powell and his white powder built from mobile weapon labs, CIA 'slam dunk' case, constant bashing of the Hans Blix weapons inspection team when they couldn't find any damn evidence of WMD, the whole Nigerian Uranium going to Iraq insanity with subsequent destruction of Valerie Plame's cover in revenge for Joseph Wilson's criticism of the entire claim.

The drumbeat of war was that Saddam was an imminent threat and needed a pre-emptive strike to assure the safety of the world.

One Source that tracks how the administration tried to distance itself from its war rhetoric after the fact: http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...es/b24970.html
Click to expand...

No way, dude. It was all about the Marsh Arabs!

Pay no attention to Bush's actual speeches.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm

From Mt. Holyoke, a liberal university, so it can probably just be dismissed out of hand.
 
Azih said:
The citations are legit. The Bush Administration pushed HARD on the idea that Saddam was an imminent threat with WMD, possibly nuclear, definitely biological and that, along with 9/11 links, constituted the drumbeat to War. The source just highlights the WMD hysteria that the administration promoted and then tried to back away from.
Click to expand...

Sadly it's because freedom for others isn't as palatable a message to some people. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but it's still a reason.

That said back on topic, besides the infghitng in the 1990s, the Kurds do a hell of a good job running their part of Iraq. It's a shame others can't model themselves of their governance, or that Turkey still bombs and attacks Northern Iraq all the time, Erodgen fans always forget that when talking about his wonderful stances in the Middle East. Poor Kurds they get screwed over by everyone.
 
Dude Abides said:
No way, dude. It was all about the Marsh Arabs!
Click to expand...

It's good to see the far left claim to care for human rights and then mock and ignore those in need, because it means agreeing with someone they don't like.

Dude Abides said:
Pay no attention to Bush's actual speeches.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm

From Mt. Holyoke, a liberal university, so it can probably just be dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...

Which often say "No Mention of Iraq"
 
The political parties really need to get their shit together in Iraq. The thing that is happening with the Hashimi is a freaking joke and it's embarrassing that they haven't resolved it yet.
 
SneakyStephan said:
You are misreading it...
114000 didn't die after the withdrawal, they died from the moment the US invaded until now, and a huge huge amount of those were killed by the US military. (the wikileaks article alone mentioned 24000 civilians murdered by US soldiers that weren't made public till then)


Iran next guys, gota continue with the culling of the brown people amiright...
Click to expand...

murdered? come the fuck on...
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
It's good to see the far left claim to care for human rights and then mock and ignore those in need, because it means agreeing with someone they don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't even...
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
It's good to see the far left claim to care for human rights and then mock and ignore those in need, because it means agreeing with someone they don't like.
Click to expand...

The fuck are you talking about? Nobody but ideologues disputes that the primary justification was terrorism and WMDs. You can pretend humanitarianism was a primary reason ex ante if it makes you feel better about your support for the clusterfuck.
 
survivor said:
The political parties really need to get their shit together in Iraq. The thing that is happening with the Hashimi is a freaking joke and it's embarrassing that they haven't resolved it yet.
Click to expand...

Look at early American political history (election of 1800, Aaron Burr, etc), these types of things are fairly common and part of the growing pains of democracy. That said the fact that the election that took so long to form a government did occur and eventually form a government is something to be encouraged by.
 
Dude Abides said:
The fuck are you talking about? Nobody but ideologues disputes that the primary justification was terrorism and WMDs.
Click to expand...
Nobody, but the far left pushes that message.

You can pretend humanitarianism was a primary reason ex ante if it makes you feel better about your support for the clusterfuck.
Click to expand...
You can pretend your opinion is somehow fact if you makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it so.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
So security over the freedom to vote and freedom to express themselves?
Click to expand...

Lol, so is that the new reason why America invaded Iraq ....... freedom?

What a load of nonsense!

Was it not to get rid of the imaginary weapons of mass destruction that never did surface?


The US lied to enable its invasion of Iraq, caused huge amounts of death and destruction and now they leave with the country in a worse state than when they entered.

Assholes.
 
Dude Abides said:
Rote, unthinking, O'Reilly-esque invocations of the "far left" don't do much to dispel the suspicion that you choose to view the facts in the manner that suits your politics, rather than vice versa.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-our-view_x.htm

Behold the far-leftists at USA Today!
Click to expand...
Are we going to start citing from the Daily Mail too? Look we're not stuck at the Holiday Inn here.

Besides in 2004, the situation looked exceptionally negative, so there was a move by the media, to go to a highly critical mode, this lasted up until the surge.

DY_nasty said:
You say that after going on about how the WMD threat wasn't what got us into Iraq - dude, you know how you sound right?
Click to expand...
It wasn't the only reason.

Azih said:
That's neither here nor there. The justification of war was the 'imminent WMD threat' Saddam posed and 9/11. Point blank. That's a complete contradiction of your point.
Click to expand...

It was also for freeing Iraq from the rule of Saddam, which in turn would lead to a more stable and democratic Middle East.

I mean besides Lebanon and Israel, how many other countries in the Middle East have real elections.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
But you'll admit it wasn't the only reason, correct?
Click to expand...

It was the primary reason, and it was a lie.

This in turn makes all other reasons they tacked on to the WMD issue seem like more lies and a smokescreen to hide the real reasons they invaded a sovereign nation at their own behest, for their own selfish interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Just another day at work, watermain burst..
6
609
Illiterate Actual replied
So halloween is basically just cosplay day.
Social 
22
2K
StueyDuck replied
  • Locked
Another Memecoin scam
16
1K
Cyberpunkd replied
Do you day drink on your days off?
2 3
102
3K
Nocty replied
Are you just living day to day?
Science 
31
3K
Lunarorbit replied
Top Bottom