I support those actions because I kind of owe you one for sticking up for me during World Forum War 2. I will produce some fake quotes from him so we have some evidence...
I support those actions because I kind of owe you one for sticking up for me during World Forum War 2. I will produce some fake quotes from him so we have some evidence...
Kinda funny how much the tone of this thread resembles the tone of tristan's Lewis Hamilton thread.
The USA went to war against Nazi Germany, which was arguably no "specific threat" at the time, to the USA. Also, I'm not sure what perceptions were wrong, other than, perhaps, the extent of development of Iraqi WMD's which, as I have stated, were a greatly significant concern, but far from being the only cause for the invasion.
The "containment" was crumbling. "Sanctions" against against Iraq were widely unpopular because of allegations that they were resulting in sick and starving Iraqi children, with help for the "unpopularity" being enhanced by corruption of the "Oil for Food Program" (by which, Saddam was permitted to sell oil in order to acquire money, so as to have been able to feed and treat such children), such that he instead used a considerable amount of the money to pursue weapons development and build palaces and, especially, to bribe international political officials to disregard and advocate/vote for eliminating the sanctions, entirely. It seems to have been likely that, within a year or two, there would have been no more "containment" (which would, anyway, have been expensive and labor-intensive [and dangerous, to pilots and perhaps others] to maintain for the rest of his life, and his sons lives, and whoever might succeed them).
I very much doubt that.
It is not practicable for America to pursue, militarily, "a serious mission to rid the world of tyranny." Instead, I am inclined to regard the benefits to the Iraqi people, of eliminating their brutally despotic ruler, as but one of the several reasons that it was desirable to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and perhaps able to be regarded simply as a lucky coincidence, for them.
Well, I can certainly understand your reluctance to enter into a waging of warfare, and I respect your freedom to do what you think is best for you. I'm simply grateful that some of your guys helped our guys.
I am curious to know what you think to have been fabricated, and what reasons you have for supposing that.
David you fail for so many reasons, but I will leave it to someone else to point out how and why, because they might word it better than I would.
This makes no sense. One cannot formally "perceive someone to be a threat." Instead, one may infer that someone is a threat, because of perceived evidence that informs such an inference - by which point, one had already acquired evidence. Your statement basically means that one should go looking for evidence that one has has evidence (and then, I suppose, one should go looking for evidence that one has that evidence, ad absurdum).
which represents no idea, except an intent to be personally insulting.
The USA did not go to war because of a specific threat from Nazi Germany, they went to war because the Japanese bombed the crap out of their harbour and provoked them into joining the war.
How can you successfully develop weapons when you can't even feed the people in your country? Saddam knew that if he tried to develop weapons the US would use it as an excuse to invade the country. Of course if he had wanted weapons, his usual sources were not available, since the USA and UK no longer sold him theirs.
First of all if they wanted to rid the world of tyranny then they would have to commit suicide. Secondly, if their primary concern was liberating the Iraqi people and helping them, why did they kill so many of them?
Every person and government should be very reluctant to wage war, war is a necessary evil, not something to do between games of golf and church. Soldiers do as they are told, they don't have to agree with it, and nobody is saying we don't support the troops, its the bastards that sent them into an illegal war and put their lives at risk for no reason that we have issues with.
That's an interesting take on things. Not sure what you were taught in your history lessons, but the rest of the world is taught that Japan attacked the US, the US declared war on Japan, and as a result Germany and Italy declared war on the US.
You think the US has some sort of halo over it's head. It doesn't.
What?
What??
Yeah. Obviously, a few fighter crews in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia is a much more expensive and labour-intensive commitment than having half the US Army stationed in Iraq for a decade or more.
And I think that sums up your blind faith in the US pretty neatly.
You're really pissing me off now. You think that the US invasion of Iraq was lucky for the Iraqi population? The population that got massacred in the anarchy following the US invasion? The population whose bodycount is far higher under US rule than it was under the entirety of Saddam's rule? The population who can now not go to the market without fear of being blown up by a car bomb?
If you want to eliminate leaders on the basis of being brutally despotic, why did the US cosy up to Islam Karimov, offering Uzbekistan (like all members of the Coalition of the "Willing") financial aid in return for his token of support? Why doesn't the US take on half of Africa? Simple answer: because there's no money to be made in Africa. Or Uzbekistan.
Well, maybe your selective memory is having an effect again. In case you need a reminder of the only thing the Bush administration was talking about in 2003, here's a reminder. Go on, go and say that we actually only invaded to rescue the poor Iraqi people. I dare you.
(EDIT) Or for more fun, watch that lying little war cr ... hit Rumsfeld squirm on tv.
That's whats wrong with the Americans in general in my opinion, so often in debates on gun ownership you keep hearing the argument that to protect yourself, you should carry something more potent, and you should act first.
It seems the concept of self protection and assault has been mixed up, "to attack first to eliminate all potential threats" is a stupid idea, because it bypasses the need fo solid prove and is purely fuelled by paranoia. Along with the media "propaganda machine" turning other countries into whatever "axles of evil/threat to freedom" you get this knee jerk reaction.
When confronted with such questions they would always tell you "America has a lot of enemy, enemy who does not like freedom, or just plain hated us"......the first point is moot, who gives a damn about people somewhere else living under freedom, the second point why should they be suprised?? afterall they are always in war.
note: "Americans" was only used specificly towards people in the USA.
It makes sense when someone "perceived as a threat" isn't exactly a threat, but just someone who has something you want it from him, or someone god in your dreams told you should has his arse kicked.
You can't compare Nazi Germany to Iraq and Saddam and expect people to listen. Not even close. Germany was very much so a specific threat, complete with adequate manpower and resources. Saddam's regime was a joke in comparison, in terms of scale and perceived threat. As far as WMDs, you're missing something if you think the U.S. administration didn't tell the public WMDs were the only reason for invasion. It was their entire case as far as the public knew, yet had very little, if not absolutely anything, to do with their actual agenda. They fed the media what the majority of U.S. citizens would need to hear to get behind them, plain and simple.
This is completely unfounded speculation, and it sounds quite similar to something Donald Rumsfeld would mutter off to cover his tracks as some reporter from CNN lists off the number of times he's contradicted himself and his colleagues in the last week...
This may be the language barrier playing a part, but to me "perception" is something mostly based on intuition. What you feel is the case. Like Dubya said in the video STROBE posted; "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people". I've yet to see the cold hard evidence he used to form that perception.
No one ever will, as it doesn't exist.
Right. And one can argue that Japan's attack does not constitute a specific threat by Nazi Germany - merely a threat that was implied. And one can argue that the USA should have waited until after a German attack on the USA, just to be sure.
I have not stated that Hussein was incapable of feeding his people - merely that he instead spent the Oil-for-Food money on other things, and then complained that the result was that his people were not fed.
Saddam agreed, as a condition of the Gulf War ceasefire, to refrain from developing weapons, and to destroy certain classes of weapons that he had, and to enable this to be verified by permitting unrestricted inspections. Instead, he obstructed, and eventually terminated, the inspections and proceeded to develop weapons. It is doubtful that he "knew" what the eventual result would be, and one would reasonably suppose that instead, he expected to be able to get away with what he was doing. And he did, indeed, get away with it, for many years (and would likely have continued to get away with it, if not for the 9/11 event).
Russia, at least, was available. And France, too, iirc.
Coalition soldiers went to extraordinary lengths (and risks), to avoid killing or injuring non-combatants. As always, "war is a terrible thing, but it's not the worst thing," as somebody once said (I think that it was John Stuart Mill).
WRT the USA, at least, the war was not illegal, since having been authorized by Congress. Nor, of course, do I regard it as being for no reason.
Hmmm i'm getting the impression that David33 is simply playing Devils Advocate here. Lets face it, we all love a good argument, and he sounds like a fairly erudite chap. Surely he doesn't honestly believe everything he's written. Surely even he can see the inconsistencies in the official report. Or am i just being overly optimistic, again ?.Whether he believes it all or not, he's playing everyone here pretty well.
I think that you are right about that. Thank you for the clarifying reminder.
I don't believe you.
Interesting consideration. My thinking was that it was better to seek to solve the problem, decisively, than to leave it to fester persistently, forever.
No; it does represent some faith in general humanity, informed by many expressions of empathy and compassion, that I have directly perceived, as well as a course in neurobiology.
I think that it would be impracticable for the USA to attempt, militarily, to defeat all evil in the world (and unfair to US soldiers, who presumably enlisted to defend their country, and unfair to US citizens, who established and maintain their government for the purpose of defending them). Even so, I think that there was good reason to wish to relieve the Iraqi people of their sufferring under Saddam Hussein's rule. Therefore, I am pleased that the Iraqi people no longer suffer under Saddam Hussein's rule, and I recognize that the desire to accomplish this, was part of what motivated the invasion of Iraq.
However, this does not mean that the USA is now logically obliged to attempt, militarily, to defeat all evil in the world. Nor does it mean that, therefore, the USA was logically obliged to refrain from relieving the Iraqi people of their sufferring under Saddam Hussein's rule, since not seeking also to defeat, militarily, evil in Africa or elsewhere.
So now the cause of finding the WMD and a terriost threat has been easily sweeped away, when we have Justice (!) in our name......
Who is it to say what should be liberated, where is the line, and why is it logical to liberate Iraq, but illogical to liberate for example Burma, North korea or as the public poll in US suggest the biggest threat of USA AND a humanright disaster - China?
What is the logic within?
And if its such a humane mission why is all the humiliation and abuse by the US troops happening? People who are not terrorists, some just minor crimials like pickpockets are being humiliated, forced to do things against their believes and ideals.
How can you justify your faith in humanity when all these are happening?
Who is it to say what should be liberated, where is the line, and why is it logical to liberate Iraq, but illogical to liberate for example Burma, North korea or as the public poll in US suggest the biggest threat of USA AND a humanright disaster - China?
What is the logic within?
And if its such a humane mission why is all the humiliation and abuse by the US troops happening? People who are not terrorists, some just minor crimials like pickpockets are being humiliated, forced to do things against their believes and ideals.
How can you justify your faith in humanity when all these are happening?
Fair enough. My experience has been such that "perception" is equivalent, in my understanding, to "sensory input."
It is a common (and annoying) rhetorical technique, to misrepresent an analogy. My purpose was to illustrate the concept, and significance, of a "specific threat" in contrast to an implicit one. This pertains not at all to the comparative military capabilities of Nazi Germany or Iraq. It pertains to whether the USA's waging of war, against an adversary, was preceded or not, by an actual attack conducted by that adversary.
but your analogy was flawed because germany did not made an actual attack on your soil before the US waged war, in fact the attacks are numbered to a few submarine missions and small landing attempts.
The Nazi was in US's standpoint an allie to the Japanese, and hence an enemy.
and to put that case in Iraq....I guess you assumed Iraq is an allie to the terriorist and that justifies a war, since the terriorsts does form a specific threat. But that link is vague, if not debatable, since a lot of the countries including the US itself had history of supporting/trading with organizations that performed an act on terriorism.
The Nazi was in US's standpoint an allie to the Japanese, and hence an enemy.
and to put that case in Iraq....I guess you assumed Iraq is an allie to the terriorist and that justifies a war, since the terriorsts does form a specific threat. But that link is vague, if not debatable, since a lot of the countries including the US itself had history of supporting/trading with organizations that performed an act on terriorism.
No; that is, in fact, why my analogy is useful. The USA waged war against Germany, even though Germany had not directly attacked the USA. And the same is true of Iraq. If it were arguable that the USA should not have waged war against Iraq, since Iraq had not attacked the USA (and was thus not a "specific threat"), then the same could be said about Nazi Germany (that it, too, was not a "specific threat"). But I think that most people recognize that Nazi Germany was a threat, nevertheless. And I think that there are reasons (that I have described) that Iraq was also a threat, nevertheless.
Whether Iraq was or was not a threat, is not recognizably dependent upon whether other nations had any history of supporting or trading with terrorist organizations.
There's another similarity as well: Tristan's thread was based on erroneous intelligence while this one is doing loops around much the same.
And most people here does not recognize Iraq as a threat.
For the reasons you raised, most of them are not proved to be true, or signicficant enough to justify Iraq as a threat more than other country.
WMD, not found.
Terrorist link? Debatable.
Military force that worries US army? none.
Neo-Conservative Global Domination
(129 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG