Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
33 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,851 Year: 18,887/19,786 Month: 1,307/1,705 Week: 113/446 Day: 9/104 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For The Record, Here's What They Said (Justification for Iraq War)
Tal
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 16 of 47 (177504)
01-16-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
01-16-2005 5:46 AM


This really does undercut the theory that he was a madman willing to use them anytime anywhere.

See post 15.

That should tell you something, about his having them in strength and/or his madman attitude toward using them.

He wasn't stupid enough to use them, but he was stupid enough to fund terrorists and could have/might have already supplied them with NBC weapons.

We are also creating mass graves.

I'll call your BS on this one. But just so I am clear, before I flame you, are you comparing the US's battle with the insurgents to Saddam's mass graves?

It was the end.

Not quite.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2005 5:46 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 01-17-2005 2:49 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 47 (177569)
01-16-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tal
01-16-2005 9:39 AM


If he had used them we wouldn't be having this discussion. Using the WMD on the US, or any of his neighbors, would simply have solidified everybody against us.

I think you meant "against him", but I agree.

It's the same logic for N. Korea.

Yes, it is the same logic for N. Korea.

Which you'll notice, we haven't invaded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:39 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tal, posted 01-18-2005 3:53 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 18 of 47 (177687)
01-16-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tal
01-16-2005 9:39 AM


Tal writes:

quote:
If he had used them we wouldn't be having this discussion. Using the WMD on the US, or any of his neighbors, would simply have solidified everybody against us.

But that doesn't help you.

If he would never use them, how could he possibly be a threat?

He didn't seem to have a problem with firing Scud missiles into Israel and we didn't carpet bomb Iraq. What on earth would have stopped him from firing a nuke?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:39 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 01-17-2005 2:47 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 19 of 47 (177733)
01-17-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rrhain
01-16-2005 10:02 PM


But that doesn't help you.

If he would never use them, how could he possibly be a threat?

He didn't seem to have a problem with firing Scud missiles into Israel and we didn't carpet bomb Iraq. What on earth would have stopped him from firing a nuke?

I already covered this, but I'll do it again.

If he would have nuked Isreal, Iraq would be a glass parking lot, as well as a few other middle eastern countries because they sure wouldn't just sit by and watch Isreal nuke Iraq....then WWIV would have been kicked off in grand style. Oh, and if anyone is confused this is WWIV right now.

The threat came from Saddam selling his WMD to terrorists that would like to use them against US targets.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 01-16-2005 10:02 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2005 2:20 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 47 (177875)
01-17-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tal
01-16-2005 9:47 AM


See post 15.

I took a look and it isne't going to help. You have to keep your claims straight, and then analyze resulting evidence.

Remember the initial claim is that he was a madman capable of and willing to use it, so willing that he posed an imminent threat to us and his neighbors.

You are now arguing that the reason he did not use them during the war to topple his regime, was because that would solidify everyone against him. This conflicts with your original claim for a couple of reasons...

1) If the threat of annihilation, or making the world his enemy, was capable of keeping him from using those weapons during the very war to annihilate him, why would that threat not have kept him from using them at any other time? When would he have been able to use them and not face that same threat (just like N Korea)?

2) Indeed, other than not using nukes, how could this war have been any worse for him? It seems he was in that boat you say he feared without ever using them. Thus if ever there was a time to use them, this war was it, as it couldn't really get any worse. So why would he not use them?

He wasn't stupid enough to use them, but he was stupid enough to fund terrorists and could have/might have already supplied them with NBC weapons.

Again this undercuts your position. If he wasn't "stupid enough" to use them at the final battle for his regime and his own life, when was he ever going to?

And as far as terrorists go, do you know which organizations Iraq helped and what the manner of contributions were? Do you know that as the Iraq War began Tom Ridge announced that chemical weapons in Iraq were unlikely to be used by terrorists in the US because it would be easier and safer for them to just make it here?

Remember the threat of WMDs is that he could use them and wanted to use them and it gave him a strategic hold in the area. A claim that he could sell them to some terrorist groups for use in small incidents is just not the same thing.

And remember OUR FRIENDS ALREADY SOLD THEIR WMD WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST STATES! I find it odd that you are arguing this was reason enough to invade Iraq, when our ally already sold all that stuff we said Iraq had and might sell (some of which they didn't even have). Yet we are not invading them? No, we are granting the criminal a pardon and honoring him as a hero while his dictator friend is allowed to rule Pakistan undemocratically. Do you see a problem here?

I'll call your BS on this one. But just so I am clear, before I flame you, are you comparing the US's battle with the insurgents to Saddam's mass graves?

First of all you keep equivocating between the invasion which was against Hussein and the Iraqi army, with the occupation and the fight against insurgents. You should be careful with that as they are not the same thing.

In any case I will take your challenge on the BS issue. First let's define "mass grave". In the case of Iraq it is not simply pulling people in front of a pit and mowing them down (which is what we saw in places like Nazi germany and the Balkans).

In Iraq there were purges to keep Hussein in power, which is exactly like what we are doing now in the case of the insurgents. You may say his insurgents were good people and ours are the bad guys, but in the end the insurgency is the same (and ironically many of the same people as Iran and Syria and Islamic Extremists were continually trying to undermine his rule).

He secured his base by warring on those that physically challenged the legitimacy of his reign and ended up getting buried together in a mass grave. I'm not quite sure what difference it makes exactly how they are buried, rather than why they were killed. You may argue they were killed in a slightly different way, but I am sure Hussein would have availed himself of any more effective method he could have used.

Second, Hussein engaged in open warfare against Iran. Most of the "mass graves" are from that period and represent lots of people who got killed for opposing Iraq, or getting in the way (even accidentally) of his war.

It must be repeated, and you really need to recognize this. Most of the "mass graves" we are talking about are decades old and represent people killed during a time of war, a war which WE SUPPORTED. Those mass graves didn't just materialize after the first Gulf War. Human Rights groups knew about this kind of thing and WE supported him and granted him cover to make more. Our crying about them now is really hypocritical.

But to make matters worse, we are increasing the hypocrisy by continuing to discuss them as reasons why he was bad. They were formed during a period of our support, and now in our invasion to secure our power base we killed many innocent people in mass numbers. There were even mass graves at the time (though some bodies may have been moved to individual graves at this point). We continue to fill graves during the insurgency.

One may claim that he hid his graves, while we do not hide the ones we are making. But this is also not true. Where are the images of the devastation we have created including the mass numbers of graves, and the mass graves during the invasion?

You can always argue that we are better than Hussein's regime, and that I would partly agree with (we certainly have better intentions, though we have yet to see results), but that does not change how graves are filled and their "mass" numbers.

Perhaps you see mass graves, especially ones that we fill versus the ones we simply helped fill at the time, in some different way?

I am open to defining things differently. Currently I do not see much of a difference.

(edited in: You claimed this war was not the last war for Saddam Hussein. I am really wondering how you come to make this claim when the point of the invasion was to remove him from power. What other war was this guy looking forward to that would be more threatening?)

This message has been edited by holmes, 01-17-2005 14:53 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:47 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 47 (177887)
01-17-2005 3:27 PM


Is the upcoming election the best hope?
Much as I am opposed to this war, I can't help but feel that for the average Iraqi these elections present the best opportunity for a hopeful future. My sincere wish is that they go off without a hitch and with widespread participation. I don't think that's going to happen, but it is my hope. Otherwise there's little hope for them and scant hope for us and any good we might ever be able to do in that part of the world.


Keep America Safe AND Free!

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tal, posted 01-18-2005 3:58 AM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2005 2:28 AM berberry has responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 22 of 47 (178039)
01-18-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
01-16-2005 2:01 PM


Yes, it is the same logic for N. Korea.

Which you'll notice, we haven't invaded.

Yet.

And even then I'm pretty sure Iran is a higher priority and I do believe Syria is working to get on our bad side.

This message has been edited by Tal, 01-18-2005 03:59 AM


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2005 2:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 5:48 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2005 11:39 AM Tal has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 23 of 47 (178040)
01-18-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
01-17-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Is the upcoming election the best hope?
Bear in mind these are not THE elections. They are electing 500+ people that will write the Iraqi constitution. This is simply the first step in a long process. If the Iraqi constitution isn't finalized and ratifies by next December, we'll be repeating this next January until a constitution is finalized.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 01-17-2005 3:27 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 47 (178046)
01-18-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
01-15-2005 11:30 AM


quote:
I agree that in reality there were more reasons. The problem is that WMDs were the major rationale for war, and pretty much the only one which would allow us to invade according to international law. Remember that until the WMD search went sour we referred to this as a preemptive invasion. There was a threat and it was imminent, or potentially imminent. Without that it was not pre-emptive, it was simply an invasion. That is against international law.

Nope, I'm afraid that would still be illegal. Kofi Annan did not say that the war was illegal BECUASE no WMD had been found; he merely said the war was illegal. Even if Iraq had been in possession of such weapojns, Iraq was not mobilising an attack against the US and thus there was no basis for preemption.

The war was illegal with or without Bush's lies. All the lies served to do was persuade people to commit an illegal act.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 11:30 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 01-18-2005 11:31 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 47 (178047)
01-18-2005 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tal
01-18-2005 3:53 AM


quote:
Yet. And even then I'm pretty sure Iran is a higher priority and I do believe Syria is working to get on our bad side.

All of which is good argument for the US being a rogue aggressor state, invading here and there and wherever it feels like based on prejudice and ignorance. And this is exactly why I say the Us is the enemy of freedom world wide and is t6he greatest threat to peace and human life on the planet today.

The interestes of freedom and democracy would best be served by the destruction of the US.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-18-2005 06:12 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tal, posted 01-18-2005 3:53 AM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 01-18-2005 12:07 PM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 47 (178152)
01-18-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by contracycle
01-18-2005 5:46 AM


Nope, I'm afraid that would still be illegal.

You misunderstood, but perhaps it was my wording. You are correct that simply whether they had WMDs was not the criteria for a legal invasion. Thats why I talked about imminent or potential for imminent attack.

Whether they had WMDs or not an imminent attack would have given us justification for an invasion. That is what was being claimed, with WMDs being the icing on the cake (if we wait for definite evidence of its imminence it would be too late bump bump bump bahhhh).

Without the threat of imminent attack, our invasion could not be pre-emptive as was described before hand. In my post I was simply mentioning the timeline where we dumped any discussion of pre-emption, once the WMDs were pretty much proven not to exist. That is of course because the only way Iraq could have attacked us was with WMDs (even if transported by terrorists instead of using a missile). His forces were clearly boxed in and he had no way of crossing an ocean to hit us conventionally.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 5:46 AM contracycle has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 47 (178154)
01-18-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tal
01-18-2005 3:53 AM


Yet.

And even then I'm pretty sure Iran is a higher priority and I do believe Syria is working to get on our bad side.

Uh-huh. Pardon me if I'm openly dirisive of the chances of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tal, posted 01-18-2005 3:53 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 01-18-2005 12:01 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 28 of 47 (178162)
01-18-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
01-18-2005 11:39 AM


derisive?


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2005 11:39 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2920
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 29 of 47 (178164)
01-18-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by contracycle
01-18-2005 5:48 AM


***Blink***
contracycle writes:

The interestes(sic) of freedom and democracy would best be served by the destruction of the US.


**Does best Rrhain impersonation** :D

**blink** are you trying to tell us something contracycle?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 5:48 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2005 2:33 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 47 (179541)
01-22-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
01-17-2005 2:47 AM


Tal responds to me:

quote:
If he would have nuked Isreal, Iraq would be a glass parking lot

So he wasn't a threat. Someone with a weapon who refuses to use it is the same as someone without a weapon. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

You have painted yourself into a corner. You're saying he's a madman but without any indication of doing anything mad.

So which is it? You don't get to have it both ways. Either he was a threat because he would use the weapons or he wasn't a threat because he never would.

quote:
The threat came from Saddam selling his WMD to terrorists that would like to use them against US targets.

What WMD?

North Korea has them. They were even involved in a plot to sell them to Hussein. Why haven't we invaded?

Iran has them. And we know they are quite hostile to the US. They are part of the "axis of evil," as Bush called it. We know they are involved in terrorism. Why haven't we invaded?

China has them. It's as if you don't remember that they actually attacked and brought down a military airplane of ours and took the crew hostage right at the beginning of Bush's term...before September 11. Why didn't we invade?

If the reason that we invaded Iraq is because they were a threat, then why the hell haven't we invaded the countries that actually are threatening us?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 01-17-2005 2:47 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019