War in Iraq

The war was an illegal and criminal adventure fow which, if there were any justice, Bush would stand trial for the homicides of all victims of the war and crimes against humanity.Furthermore it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the West's alleged "democracy" and the gulliblity of the US electorate (with nearly half still convinced there was a link bewtween AQ and Saddam).Lastly, the war has made it plain that only "rogue state" which poses a threat to the world is the USA.

quote:

---

Do you think there was a way we could have done it better than we did? Or do you think the venture was fundamentally flawed?

---

No, It was fundamentally flawed. Or at least, the stated ambitions were antithetical to the means employed, and this should have been obvious. In fact, it was obvious.

quote:

---

Do you think it's never appropriate to invade a country to depose a dangerous despot?

---

Yeesh... lets say that by now, after a thousand years of European wars, if we haven't learned that this sort of hubris is counterproductive, we have learned nothing. But in fact, we DID learn it, and enshrined it in law as the right to self determination of states. Because, it is too easy for any aggressor state to use this argument as an excuse. Remember, Hitler only invaded Czechoslavakia because they were oppressing ethnic Germans... or so he said.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just wondering exactly what your position is.

---

It was strategically stupid, because of clear ulterior motives
It was politically dishonest, as the discredited pretexts show
It was elitist and imperialist, as it arrogantly sought to impose a way of life
It was clearly illegal as the UN has no rights over the internal policy of member states"War is a bringer of shame
But never has the burden lain so heavily upon the victim"

quote:

---

I know that liberation was great, but war is savage.

---

What liberation is there in Occupied Iraq?

quote:

---

Clear ulterior motives being what? Oil?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Politically dishonest, do you think Bush lied to us as a nation? About his motives of war

---

I do, but thats undemonstrable; what is demonstrable is that they selected the evidence for the answer they wanted, rather than merely examining the evidence.

quote:

---

A better way of life, where people can live freely without such a man as Saddam?

---

How about a better way of life where people can live freely without such a man as George Bush? Am I now entitled to bomb you and your family becuase I think this?

quote:

---

Why limit the guilt to republicans? Democrats as well as republicans wanted this war...

---

Yes. The democrats have exactly as much blood on their hands as the Republicans.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-22-2004 11:36 AM

quote:

---

I see your point, and I agree. But I don't think this comparison is fair, considering Bush is not killing his countrymen, although you might say he is causing all of the causualties we see in Iraq, including our own...

---

I do, but I point out as well, Bush has signed over a hundred death warrants, so he is indeed guilty of killing his countrymen. Now you may argue that this was through due process... but the US has suspended due process in the "war on terror".But the serious point is that your opinion on whether the comparison is fair or not is actually wholly irrelevant. The US doctrine says its MY decision alone, if I have the power to act. If *I* think Bush should go for your own good, then I am free to bomb, maim and rape in the name of that good cause - and if you object or complain, that will only confirm how vile and evil you are.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-23-2004 04:23 AM

quote:

---

I was wondering if you might elaborate on this point. I had originally thought that the war must be about oil but the more I thought about it the less sense that made. As best as I can tell there was no problem at all getting oil out of Iraq with Saddam in power. He was perfectly willing to pump and sell his most lucrative natural resource. If the oil wasn't flowing fast enough for us it was because we had imposed an embargo on Iraq.

---

Shell has just had to revise its public statements of its reserve supplies down four times in a row, IIRC. despite the fact that oil stocks are thus now known to be ever smaller than the already parlous situation we understood before, OPEC has agreed to INCREASE production in order to assist western states with fuel costs.Despite the fact that the resource is running out, we want more of it for less. According to othodox economics, the price should be rising as the prospect of sustained supply drops. But we, the west, has the might to influence OPEC through the clear and open military threat it poses to OPEC states. Furthermore, the US now directly controls a or the major oil-producing nation, meaning that the US has the ability to render OPEC even less relevant than it is now.This was a war for oil. The US has taken a very strong stance across the middle east exactly in accordance with the strategic wargames conducted for a notional WWIII.

quote:

---

This is like arguing moral equivalence between the police and the Mafia because both have automatic weapons. IOW, it makes no sense.

---

As it happens, I think they are exactly equivalent. Only I have more respect for thre Mafia, who are at least honest.

quote:

---

No, it didn't happen. The UN talked, but took no action.

---

That is becuase it is forbidden by its constitution from intervening in the internal affairs of member states. And one of the reasons this safeguard appears in the UN is so that it doesn't become the 'one world government' beloved of American conspiracy theorists.

quote:

---

The terroriists become terrorists for the same reasons the SS became SS. Naivete and questionable moral equivalence aside, they still want us dead.

---

Come on, that’s a gross and unfair stereotype. People become "terrorists" because that is the weapon by which the poor can fight the rich. Its exactly this blind Evil/Good dichotomy that is causing the problem; you just can’t grant that anyone opposes you legitimately. There are only those who agree with you, and evildoers. THAT’S how people end up joining the SS; by being convinced they can do no wrong.

quote:

---

But to suggest that our enemies will make nice if we're just nicer to them is suicidally naive.

---

That’s nuts; yes, it is the case that if the US stops bombing people, playing protectionist games, and flaunting its unilateralism, then it would have fewer enemies, without a doubt. But as we see in the above paragraph, you don’t seem to WANT fewer enemies.

quote:

---

If you hold to such theories of moral equivalence, you have forfeited any rational basis for criticizing the actions of anyone, including Bush.

---

Why? Don’t be absurd.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-24-2004 01:49 PMThis message has been edited by contracycle, 06-24-2004 01:55 PM

quote:

---

See, I'm just not sold on that stance. Iraq, preinvasion, was a secular state and as I said was willing to pump and sell oil. What we may end up with now could be a strongly muslim country which, after a couple of elections, may or may not like us.

---

Well, sure. Plans can backfire; strategy is not conceived from full knowledge of destiny. But equally, does this hostility to the US matter if you have the might to ignore their objections? I mean, the US steadily ignores all sorts of objections, about global warming, about nuclear proliferation, etc etc.

quote:

---

As you can probably tell I am by no means an expert on the subject but the "war for oil" strategy just doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to go in, our money is always far more likely to get us oil than violence.

---

Only assuming a functional market that continues to operate, and the willingness of oil producing countries to participate in that market. Given the US support for Israeli terrorism, it's conceivable that the US could end up under OPEC embargo.Posession, as they say, is nine tenths of the law. The actual, material presence of the US military establishes a much firmer, more secure, expectation of continued supply. This is good for business; its good for domestic politics; it is good for national prestige and power projection.The market is not reliable in times of conflict. Thus both US and societ doctrines for WWIII contained inital moves against the middle eastern oilfields. If the US is in fact at war, as the Bush Doctrine asserts, then this is the only logical opening to employ.