Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

But you'll admit it was the primary reason, correct?

You don't even want to admit it was a reason, which is what I said.

 

[Jaladinozozo]

A new year, another thread already getting shitted up by Manos...

 

[BobsRevenge]

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.

It seems like you're trying to shift the perception off the religious element. The religious element is a strong factor in what allows these things to happen.

It is incredibly important to not minimize it. Yes, it is often land disputes or resource disputes that spark these things. Of course that is true. But that's a spark. That's a fuse. If you look at the make-up of the bomb itself, you'll find that religion is a large ingredient.

As it was in the Balkans.

 

[Dude Abides]

You don't even want to admit it was a reason, which is what I said.

Since your little vacation does not seem to have improved your reading comprehension, I'll bold my very first post in this thread to assist you.

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.

 

[Jburton]

A new year, another thread already getting shitted up by Manos...

It was a given considering the thread, and the fact that the US position can not be defended.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It was a given considering the thread, and the fact that the US position can not be defended.

Why can't it? Despite what others have claimed, it wasn't illegal, since Congress gave it's authority (a specific constitutional power) which can't be overridden by treaty.

Since your little vacation does not seem to have improved your reading comprehension, I'll bold my very first post in this thread to assist you.

Apparently your reading comprehension is still as daft as ever, I'll bold the second part of your post

that justification was largely promoted post hoc after the primary reason, WMDs, turned out to be baseless.

You act like you acknowledge it, but then treat it as something so minimal that it was non-existent and really only existed after the fact.

 

[Jburton]

Why can't it? Despite what others have claimed, it wasn't illegal, since Congress gave it's authority (a specific constitutional power) which can't be overridden by treaty.


Apparently your reading comprehension is still as daft as ever, I'll bold the second part of your post

You act like you acknowledge it, but then treat it as something so minimal that it was non-existent and really only existed after the fact.

Lol, what legal authority does the US congress hold over the sovereign country of Iraq?

None!

Talk about grasping at straws.


As it stands, compared to the 'Axis of Evil' the US military has killed more innocent people this past decade than Iran ever has.

You will say " Oh but Democracy"

Being a democratic country does not make it good in the sense that a non democratic country is automatically evil.

US might be a democratic country but it's then government endorsed a War perpetrated on the strength of lies and fearmongering which lead to the deaths of innocent civilians in three countries that number into the hundreds of thousands.

Democratic but cunts all the same.

 

[Dude Abides]

You act like you acknowledge it, but then treat it as something so minimal that it was non-existent and really only existed after the fact.

I guess, if you don't understand what words like "some" and "largely" mean.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Lol, what legal authority does the US congress hold over the sovereign country of Iraq?

Congress has war powers and chose to exercise those rights. You need to accept that.

I guess,

Thank you!

 

[Wazzim]

Congress has war powers and chose to exercise those rights. You need to accept that.

You better sent that memo to the UN and the ICC, just to give them a peace of mind about this.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You better sent that memo to the UN and the ICC, just to give them a peace of mind about this.

Last I checked the US isn't a party to the ICC.

UN can say and do what it wants, but it's irrelevant in terms of supremacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

 

[Jburton]

Congress has war powers and chose to exercise those rights. You need to accept that.



Thank you!

They have the legal authority in America to commit the US armed forces to War.

This does not make the war against Iraq legal, it just means that the US followed their own laws when declaring war ....... an illegal war against a sovereign country based on lies and self interests.

By your logic whatever government structure in Iran that can send its armed forces to war, if it was to do so let's say against America would be legal ........ because the legal authority in that country had declared this war.



The US does not have domain over the world, so fuck what it's congress declared.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They have the legal authority in America to commit the US armed forces to War.

This does not make the war against Iraq legal, it just means that the US followed their own laws when declaring war

Actually it does.

....... an illegal war against a sovereign country based on lies and self interests.

Except it's not an illegal war.

By your logic whatever government structure in Iran that can send its armed forces to war, if it was to do so let's say against America would be legal ........ because the legal authority in that country had declared this war.

Correct, unless they allow treaties to overrule domestic law. Iran can feel free to declare war on the United States all it wants. I'm sure it will go quite swimmingly for them!

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Manos is on to a great start this year, you guys have fallen for it! just take the joke to its extremes, say hey! join up big boy, we've got a world to fight! women and children to kill! i'll take care of your wife, or sister, or mother whoever while your gone and seduce her to the communist ways

 

[Jburton]

Actually it does.



Except it's not an illegal war.




Correct, unless they allow treaties to overrule domestic law. Iran can feel free to declare war on the United States all it wants. I'm sure it will go quite swimmingly for them!

Your opinions as stated here remind of that barely functioning idiot that used to be president of the US.

Look at the death and destruction that idiot caused due to his ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos is on to a great start this year, you guys have fallen for it! just take the joke to its extremes, say hey! join up big boy, we've got a world to fight! women and children to kill! i'll take care of your wife, or sister, or mother whoever while your gone and seduce her to the communist ways

I dunno you tend to react by freaking out, you might want to head your own advice.

Your opinions as stated here remind of that barely functioning idiot that used to be president of the US.

Seems more like I'm hearing from the views of a bitter leftist.

Look at the death and destruction that idiot caused due to his ignorance and stupidity.

What are you babbling on about?

 

[Wazzim]

I just can't discuss foreign policy with someone who doesn't accept international law, I'm done with Manos on this subject.

It's like people forgot the millions who died and suffered in WWI,all because of egoistical bullshit. Fuck war.

 

[Fari]

I'm beginning to suspect that Manos is engaging in elaborate performance art. Or possibly just trolling.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I just can't discuss foreign policy with someone who doesn't accept international law, I'm done with Manos on this subject.

Hey, it's not my fault that's how the law works in this country.

 

[Jburton]

I dunno you tend to react by freaking out, you might want to head your own advice.


Seems more like I'm hearing from the views of a bitter leftist.



What are you babbling on about?

The (illegal) war against Iraq was based on lies and strategic self interests that resulted in a huge civilian death toll (a huge amount by US hands) and that ignorant moron Bush pushed for this War.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The (illegal) war against Iraq was based on lies and strategic self interests that resulted in a huge civilian death toll (a huge amount by US hands) and that ignorant moron Bush pushed for this War.

What illegal war? You keep saying illegal, but that clearly doesn't apply here.

 

[Jburton]

I'm beginning to suspect that Manos is engaging in elaborate performance art. Or possibly just trolling.

Meh ..... I would not give him that much credit.

The fact he is just back from a ban for trolling / shitting up threads says a lot.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

114,000 is it? Not that it's a small number but anti-war sites and articles years ago were tossing out numbers that were over a million.

 

[Azih]

It seems like you're trying to shift the perception off the religious element. The religious element is a strong factor in what allows these things to happen.

It is incredibly important to not minimize it. Yes, it is often land disputes or resource disputes that spark these things. Of course that is true. But that's a spark. That's a fuse. If you look at the make-up of the bomb itself, you'll find that religion is a large ingredient.

As it was in the Balkans.

Different communities and communities being suspicious of each other is the reason. It's all tribalism. Whether the differences are based in ethnicity (Kurd vs Arab or Arab vs Persian), nationality (Iraqi vs Irani), sect/religion (Shia vs Sunni), and what the cause of the suspicion is history (of oppression or tit for tat revenge), perceived conspiracy, or whatever else is besides the point.

Hell Kurds have conducted suicide bombing in Turkey and that's not due to religious differences. I'm not minimising the religious element at all. I'm just putting them in the same category as all the others.

 

[Jburton]

What illegal war? You keep saying illegal, but that clearly doesn't apply here.

The justification for the war was a lie, making any legal justification invalid.

 

[Jburton]

114,000 is it? Not that it's a small number but anti-war sites and articles years ago were tossing out numbers that were over a million.

Where did you get that number from?

 

[FStop7]

114,000 people is equivalent to the entire city of Berkeley, CA, give or take.

The equivalent of the entire city of Berkeley, dead.

And there are jokers on here trying to play apologist for it.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Not even Saddam have killed that much..

You really don't know much about anything, do you?

The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

Thousands of civilians were killed during the anti-insurgent campaigns stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed approximately 4,500 Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 1,100,000 to more than 2,150,000 deaths and as many as 860,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans.[5] Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988.[6] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East.[7] According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 182,000 people were killed.[8]

And many thousands more occurred in the early 1990's in repressing the 1991 uprising, and then the wave of terroristic reprisals following the uprising. This time the killing was not only concentrated on the Kurds, but also on the Shias, (some 60,000 to 100,000 killed) and the Marsh Arabs, whose society basically ceased to exist entirely--all were either killed or forcibly displaced.

You really have no idea, dood.

 

[speculawyer]

The fuck are you talking about? Nobody but ideologues disputes that the primary justification was terrorism and WMDs.

Nobody, but the far left pushes that message.

Jesus dude. You must have a guilty conscious in order to be able to lie to yourself that much.

I present "Far left" Paul Wolfowitz:
WMD emphasis was 'bureaucratic'

The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.
But in an interview with the American magazine Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz said there were many other important factors as well.

The famously hawkish Mr Wolfowitz has been a long-time proponent of military action against Iraq.

Picking weapons of mass destruction was "the one reason everyone could agree on", he says in the interview.

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2945750.stm

I love his back-up reason . . . . appeasement to Usama!

Is that your 2nd reason too? Appeasement?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The justification for the war was a lie, making any legal justification invalid.

Except it doesn't. I'm unaware of the law where an act of congress becomes invalid if someone lied (which is questionable) in the process.

114,000 people is equivalent to the entire city of Berkeley, CA, give or take.

The equivalent of the entire city of Berkeley, dead.

And there are jokers on here trying to play apologist for it.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

We've truly reduced civilian deaths over time, compared to previous conflicts, while the goal is always 0, the number (heck even if larger) is still an improvement.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Jesus dude. You must have a guilty conscious in order to be able to lie to yourself that much.

Why would I have a guilty conscious? I'd have to have done something wrong for me to feel guilty about? So what are you referring to?

 

[speculawyer]

You really don't know much about anything, do you?

Wikipedia Entry: "Al-Anfal Campaign:
The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

It always cracks me up when conservatives cite atrocities COMMITTED WHILE REAGAN WAS SUPPORTING SADDAM as a reason to invade 25 years later. Amazing mental gymnastics.

 

[Kaako]

Just sickening.
RIP innocent civilians and bystanders.

 

[speculawyer]

Why would I have a guilty conscious? I'd have to have done something wrong for me to feel guilty about? So what are you referring to?

You tell me. Why do you create false narratives and re-write history?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You tell me. Why do you create false narratives and re-write history?

False narrative and rewrite history about what?

 

[Something Wicked]

From the "Showdown with Iran" thread:

Many of the deaths in Iraq were caused by the IRG funding Shiite insurgent groups, along with Al Qaeda (with the help of the Syria regime) training and fighting along side Sunni insurgents. Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are responsible for most the deaths in post-May 2003 Iraq. And even during the first month, most of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, since Saddam's forces were making people stay in their apartments at gunpoint to increase civilians casualties for greater worldwide sympathy- just like Hamas does when Israel engages.

I agree that the US Cold War policies of previous decades were very short-sighted. The USSR was going to fail with or without the US proxies. Communism was a minor threat by the later 70s/early 80s- Islamic fundamental jihadism had become the true threat and it took the US until 9/11/2001 to fully realize that.

To me, Iraq wasn't exactly about stopping chemical weapon production. It was apart of the "grand plan" of reshaping the Middle East into a democratic, pro-US, and eventually secular region. Taking out the main state sponsors of terrorism became necessary in order to achieve such peace and stability.

The Taliban, by harboring the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11, drew the obvious first card. An ally-less Iraq with an easily vilify-able Saddam would be the logical second regime. Then allied Syria and Iran would come last (at least as far as the major campaigns go). Unfortunately, Pakistan screwed up and now is on double secret probation.

Did you seriously use Iraq and stability in the same sentence...?

Regional stability.

The rise of foreign investment into cities like Dubai, Doha, and Kuwait City over the last decade has been very much correlated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. The region would see an even bigger economic boost if the current Iranian regime was replaced with a pro-Arab/pro-western government.

want to create?
Iraq is total chaos and non-functional since the USA brought peace and freedom to the country. it's almost as worse as afghanistan
there's no way to put that in a good light

This is extreme hyperbole. Please educate yourself on the recent economic gains in Iraq, particularly in the Kurdish districts. The average Iraqi may become richer than the average Greek in 10-15 years if such growth continues to accelerate.

 

[speculawyer]

False narrative and rewrite history about what?

Dude already nailed you the wall, I'm not going to bother.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Dude already nailed you the wall, I'm not going to bother.

He didn't do much besides do his usually routine. If you can't supply any evidence to this rewriting history you keep talking about, then just admit you wrong. It's okay.

 

[nib95]

Just to clarify, in this thread, Manos essentially disregards all international law? Well, just...wow...

 

[Pristine_Condition]

It always cracks me up when conservatives cite atrocities COMMITTED WHILE REAGAN WAS SUPPORTING SADDAM as a reason to invade 25 years later. Amazing mental gymnastics.

He said Saddam didn't kill that many people. That's the quote I was responding to, you loon. That's why I quoted it.

He clearly killed many, many more people, and I was simply correcting a factual error.

He was wrong. Period.

Did I say anything in my post about these atrocities justifying the Iraq war? No. I DID NOT. You are just making that shit up, which makes you sound pathetic with your shitty, nonsensical rhetorical tactics...

The "amazing mental gymnastics" are actually figments of your own fertile imagination, or perhaps your distorted sense of reality, because I never mentioned anything about justification for the Iraq war. Nothing. YOU SIMPLY MADE THAT SHIT UP.

And the at least 200,000+ killed by Saddam AFTER all US support was lifted from the regime makes your "point" even more nonsensical.

But nice try trying to squeeze a little of your partisan political juice out of an obvious factual error anyway. Good to see you will defend misstatements of facts just to spread your agenda here. Like we didn't know that already.

I'm perfectly capable of telling you what I want to say, speculawyer. You don't have to go writing fiction about me.

 

[To Far Away Times]

To the Bush Administration,

I hope the oil was worth it. And to think I was naive enough to vote for you on your first term.

Did anyone ever tell you guys that the U.S. has most of the world's weapons of mass destruction? And we're the only ones to actually use them on another country? I guess you'd be pretty cool with Iraq occupying us, right? Seeing as we actually have WMD's and all that.

Signed,

To Far Away Times

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

He said Saddam didn't kill that many people. That's the quote I was responding to, you loon. That's why I quoted it.

He clearly killed many, many more people, and I was simply correcting a factual error.

He was wrong. Period.

Did I say anything in my post about these atrocities justifying the Iraq war? No. I DID NOT. You are just making that shit up, which makes you sound pathetic with your shitty, nonsensical rhetorical tactics...

The "amazing mental gymnastics" are actually figments of your own fertile imagination, or perhaps your distorted sense of reality, because I never mentioned anything about justification for the Iraq war. Nothing. YOU SIMPLY MADE THAT SHIT UP.

And the at least 200,000+ killed by Saddam AFTER all US support was lifted from the regime makes your "point" even more nonsensical.

But nice try trying to squeeze a little of your partisan political juice out of an obvious factual error anyway. Good to see you will defend misstatements of facts just to spread your agenda here. Like we didn't know that already.

I'm perfectly capable of telling you what I want to say, speculawyer. You don't have to go writing fiction about me.

i believe he was making a general statement

 

[Rubbish King]

Spoiler

Can't get this song out of my head now;

Just a day,
Just an ordinary day.
Just trying to get by.
Just a boy,
Just an ordinary boy.
But he was looking to the sky.
And as he asked if I would come along
I started to realize
That everyday he finds
Just what he's looking for,
Like a shooting star he shines.

He said take my hand,
Live while you can
Don't you see your dreams lie right in the palm of your hand​

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Presumably though, this was always going to happen after Saddam fell? Regardless of who toppled him, or how, was this a ticking time-bomb anyway?

How on earth can the US put the genie back into the bottle? Should they occupy Iraq indefinitely?

I see why the US gets responsibility for the current mess but I'm not sure that is fair.

We went to a sovereign nation and removed their dictator without provocation. How in the hell is that not fair?

 

[razorman]

Death toll today is now up to 72

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16420554

 

[DY_nasty]

But you'll admit it wasn't the only reason, correct?

Are you really the kind of person who plays that game? cmon dude

I definitely remember people in the streets rallying to free Iraqis from dictatorship with the hope that they may one day have freedom and democracy. Yes. That definitely happened.

 

[FStop7]

Back on topic (this thread is not about Manos despite his standard M.O. of trying to make it be) - how long until the Iraqi government "invites" the US military back to help? I give it 6 months.

 

[theignoramus]

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'.

no it's fundamentally different. In murder, your intention is to destroy anyone opposed to you, in genocide, there's a distinct ethnic dimension to it, in that you try to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group or nationality.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

no it's fundamentally different. In murder, your intention is to destroy anyone opposed to you, in genocide, there's a distinct ethnic dimension to it, in that you try to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group or nationality.

If I lynch a black person because I hate them and want to see them wiped out, that isn't genocide, even though there's a racial element. It's just murder. To be genocide it has to be some sort of mass killing. The "smallest" genocide I'm aware of is the death of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at the hands of the Bosnian army at the time. Further, the reason for your killings isn't of particular relevance in murder cases outside of possible self-defense - destroying somebody who opposes you and destroying somebody because they looked at you funny / you're a racist / you're just wanted to watch them die would all be murder.

 

[theignoramus]

If I lynch a black person because I hate them and want to see them wiped out, that isn't genocide, even though there's a racial element. It's just murder. To be genocide it has to be some sort of mass killing. The "smallest" genocide I'm aware of is the death of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at the hands of the Bosnian army at the time. Further, the reason for your killings isn't of particular relevance in murder cases outside of possible self-defense - destroying somebody who opposes you and destroying somebody because they looked at you funny / you're a racist / you're just wanted to watch them die would all be murder.

we fundamentally agree. for example, the US murdered tens of thousands of innocent peasants when it was indiscriminately bombing Laos, Cambodia and South vietnam, but it's a stretch to argue it was a deliberate, systematic campaign to culturally exterminate these groups.