Nicks Challenge -3 of 3- Iraq War Legitimacy - ends Mar 20th

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Again very huge. You can start Nick.

[Funkmasterr]

In regards to the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, I think there have been some major misconceptions/misinformations on either side of the issue.

I don't believe that the war was started for us to obtain oil, I do believe there was a threat that was posed, if not by Saddam himself then by people he was willingly harboring in his country. I have read stories (in magazines my girlfriends step father had, I have been looking online but have been unable to find them so far) about nuclear waste dumped into rivers at facilities that were abandoned before we got in to search them (hinting here that they up and moved in a hurry).

Even if this was occurring, could you argue that it wouldn't necessarily pose as much of a threat as it was made out to be, and not enough to justify what we did? I can maybe see that argument, but I don't think I would agree. Basically, Saddam told us (Bush Sr.) that he was going to play nice, and he didn't. Disobedient little brats get punished, but unfortunately for this one, he had used up all his chances and instead, he swung.

To this day I do not feel that we made a mistake in doing this. I think the world, especially Iraq will be a better place without him. Yes, things didn't go off perfectly and people are dying, but that is how these things work. At some point things will be stabilized, and more than likely the people of Iraq will be in a much better place as a result.

I also don't agree with your wording nick, when you say:

the importance of acknowledging the dead victims of American imperialism.

To call what we are doing in Iraq American Imperialism I believe is a misrepresentation of our intentions and what is occuring. Of course in a way the U.S. is benefiting from the situation, however we are not there to take over their country and make them the 51st state, we did not show up in Iraq and just start walking through villages cutting women and children's throats.

The number of casualties in this war are low compared to any war in our past, and while that doesn't make it ok that people are dying, I think it is being far over exaggerated by some.

I think really the overlying issue here is just the plain old war vs diplomacy argument that is re hashed throughout history anytime there is a conflict like this. And in my opinion, diplomacy in most situations gets you now where in the long run, particularly with people like we are dealing with in the middle east.

IMO, us trying to find diplomatic solutions to the issues we have in the middle east, and with terrorism in general is like me walking into the Bed Sty projects in Brooklyn wearing a KKK costume and trying to talk to a black dude with a gun about how him and I can get along.

There are always going to be these two sides to this argument, and I have a feeling that both of us (nick) will both stay firmly planted where we are no matter how much we argue the reasons why.

[Noysyrump]

Everyone knows Bush Jr. started the war because Hussein called his daddy stupid (and tried to assassinate him).

I have a friend, who just got back from his 3rd tour. He told me, (in confidence) that he, personally has seen these legendary WMPs, and delivery systems. But he was sworn to NOT tell anyone about them (wich he did when he told me, because Now I'm relaying it to you.)

Is he full of shit? Possibly. Is he telling the truth? Possibly. Can I know for sure? No. Not unless I go there myself and have someone on the inside confirm/show them to me.

[Zaelath]

What are WMPs? If there was some smoking gun, Bush would be waving it around like a virgin's cock in a whore house.

[Noysyrump]

What are WMPs? If there was some smoking gun, Bush would be waving it around like a virgin's cock in a whore house.

Fuck I cant even spell a single letter correctly.

[Animale]

What are WMPs? If there was some smoking gun, Bush would be waving it around like a virgin's cock in a whore house.

Unless, of course, each one was imprinted with a hand typed letter from George H.W. Bush saying "Dear Saddam, Please use these on Iran and not us! Happy Hunting! Your Pal, Georgie"
Hehe... that would be funny.

[Nick]

In regards to the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, I think there have been some major misconceptions/misinformations on either side of the issue.

I don't believe that the war was started for us to obtain oil,

The attempts to privatize Iraqi oil, evidence of which have been long in the public domain, prove this to be simply wrong. Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast is a basic resource to go and check this, Google is another.

I do believe there was a threat that was posed, if not by Saddam himself then by people he was willingly harboring in his country.

Who are these people and when have they attacked the United States? Or rather, realistically had a shot at attacking the United States. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, why is this being ignored?

I have read stories (in magazines my girlfriends step father had, I have been looking online but have been unable to find them so far) about nuclear waste dumped into rivers at facilities that were abandoned before we got in to search them (hinting here that they up and moved in a hurry).

There is and never has been any actual evidence of WMD.

Even if this was occurring, could you argue that it wouldn't necessarily pose as much of a threat as it was made out to be, and not enough to justify what we did? I can maybe see that argument, but I don't think I would agree. Basically, Saddam told us (Bush Sr.) that he was going to play nice, and he didn't. Disobedient little brats get punished, but unfortunately for this one, he had used up all his chances and instead, he swung.

Yep, that's true, people who don't obey daddy get punished. If Daddy gives you weapons to kill people with, and then you actually go and use those on people that daddy didn't want you to, then you deserve to be punished.

One question though, why was daddy giving him weapons in the first place?

To this day I do not feel that we made a mistake in doing this.

That's a terrible shame. It also shows a total lack of compassion for the number of dead people who have died for zero reason other than to allow you to feel safer after 3 buildings in your country were hit by people from Saudi Arabia.

I think the world, especially Iraq will be a better place without him.

Perhaps, the current evidence suggests otherwise. Even then, down the line, in 50 years, the amount of people that have been killed put that particular assumption far from the point of "definite" and deeply into the area of "morally dubious". Currently we aren't even at morally dubious, we're just at "wrong" and being asked to be patient.

That would be fine, except it doesn't affect us really one way or the other. I guess it just depends if you value human life below American ideals that haven't actually proven to work.

Yes, things didn't go off perfectly and people are dying, but that is how these things work. At some point things will be stabilized, and more than likely the people of Iraq will be in a much better place as a result.

There was another guy who had that sort of reasoning.

I also don't agree with your wording nick, when you say:

the importance of acknowledging the dead victims of American imperialism.

To call what we are doing in Iraq American Imperialism I believe is a misrepresentation of our intentions and what is occuring. Of course in a way the U.S. is benefiting from the situation, however we are not there to take over their country and make them the 51st state, we did not show up in Iraq and just start walking through villages cutting women and children's throats.

Cutting/bombing, whats the difference eh?

The number of casualties in this war are low compared to any war in our past, and while that doesn't make it ok that people are dying, I think it is being far over exaggerated by some.

This isn't a war, this is an invasion that was enacted unilaterally by the US Government, or rather, the most corrupt US government in recent decades, to make financial profit off an oil rich country whilst attempting (and failing) to react to the first attack on American soil by people from Saudi Arabia.

I think really the overlying issue here is just the plain old war vs diplomacy argument that is re hashed throughout history anytime there is a conflict like this. And in my opinion, diplomacy in most situations gets you now where in the long run, particularly with people like we are dealing with in the middle east.

You picked a fight with a country that was of no threat to you. The very assumption that Iraq is a thread to the US is ridiculous, everyone knew it at the time. This was about making an idealogical shift in the Middle East to switch power away from certain elements and into the control of pro-US people (Chalabi anyone?)

There are always going to be these two sides to this argument, and I have a feeling that both of us (nick) will both stay firmly planted where we are no matter how much we argue the reasons why.

Yes, I can safely say that to my dying day that the Iraq invasion was a terrible action and one that will affect the US in a negative way for decades to come.

[Warheart]

One word

Blowback

[Sueven]

I want to say that I absolutely agree with Nick on this point:

This was about making an idealogical shift in the Middle East to switch power away from certain elements and into the control of pro-US people

Except I might switch the phrase 'pro-US' to 'pro-West' or 'pro-globalization' or 'pro-global integration' or something like that.

This means that I disagree with the following two statements:

this is an invasion that was enacted... to make financial profit off an oil rich country

and

I do believe there was a threat that was posed, if not by Saddam himself then by people he was willingly harboring in his country.

With regard to Nick's above statement: There are certainly some elements who have benefited financially from Iraq (Halliburton, Blackwater, etc), but for the most part this is not the case. Iraq has been really really expensive, has resulted in huge defense expenditures, and has stretched our military in ways which will require additional future expenditures. The government, and the country as a whole, have not made money on this. If you think that the American government is so corrupt that they would have gone to war simply to benefit a few certain companies financially, well OK. But I think it's a lot more plausible to say that the government's first motivation is explained by your first quoted statement. Perhaps once we were already in Iraq, the Bush administration thought 'hey, a few companies will benefit financially from this-- let's steer those benefits toward our buddies,' but I think it's implausible to believe that this was the motivation for the war in the first instance.

With regard to Funk's above statement: Really? I certainly bought into the rhetoric about WMD's and threats more at the time of invasion than I do now (although I certainly wasn't sold at the time of invasion), and I remember that conventional wisdom at the time was that Saddam would unleash chemical weapons on our troops. That didn't happen. In fact, his army and munitions proved to be absolutely the least of our problems in Iraq. We've uncovered no evidence of WMD programs and we vastly overestimated Saddam's military power. Nuclear programs-- especially when you're in the early stages of development-- require substantial investments in infrastructure, manpower, energy, and so forth. Even though Saddam was being difficult with respect to weapons inspectors, it seems to me that inspectors would have been able to identify an active nuclear program, had one existed, nevertheless.

So I think that the motivation for the Iraq war was simple: The Bush administration thought that, upon the conclusion of the war, the Middle East would be better than it would have been without the war. Is that true? In my opinion, it's too early to judge. It is clear that the Bush administration made several other miscalculations in the war-- underestimating the immediate necessity for boots on the ground, the strength of the insurgency, the power of sectarian divides, etc etc etc-- so they very well could have miscalculated here, too. We'll see.

[Ashur]

I concur with just about every observation and view Sueven listed.

I think they thought they were going to get in, clean house of the anti-western elements left behind from the Gulf War and prop up one of the pro-democracy groups in his place seeing how progressive Iraq was despite Saddam's police state. I believe Saddam would eventually take over Saudi Arabia given the opportunity, which he has had in abundance, and his chances of success without a huge foreign element to defend it was pretty good. The Kingdom isn't exactly strong. I know because my dad was a contractor for them in building military bases and, except for small groups, they are pretty much nincompoops in the military department. They'll spend the money to buy the best equipment and then completely misuse it, whereas Saddam had a huge military machine and Riyadh isn't that far away. Seize the House of Saud biggies in Riyadh; game over.

Getting rid of Saddam (and his inheritors) was a good idea in theory.

They (Bush, Pentagon, Think Tanks) grossly miscalculated how shitty things would be once that police state came apart. They miscalculated it on a scale of bug-fuckery previously unknown to man. Saddam was an ass to most of the world and few if any mourn his passing, but he kept things in Iraq humming along (Secret Police and state sponsored torture of a despot is a strong motivator!) under his thumb.

With him gone and the Baath party removed, the three factions that comprise Iraq essentially went into quiet civil war. The Kurds want to be left alone with part of Iraq (and Turkey!), the Shiites want an Iranian style (and allied!) state, and the Sunnis want, well, fuck if I know what they want. It sounds like the Arabs want to use the situation to wage holy war on the evil westerners while the native Sunnis want to just keep power out of the hands of the Shiites. The Coalition just wants a stable pro-western (or at least not ANTI-western) government they can turn the keys over to so we can get out the fuck out of Dodge.

As for Oil, yeah, I doubt this was all done to "steal oil", [edit] but it was defiantly, as stated, "about oil", as is our interest in the Middle East in general. [end edit] There is money to be made for a few companies such as Haliburton and Blackwater, but again, they ARE US companies, so naturally they're going to award the work to them. Do you really believe they'd award the work to a French multinational after the UN French naysaying/cockblocks? (remember all that Freedom Fries bullshit? The French weren't exactly big on our list back then.)

I believe that the Bush Administration wanted to remove Saddam and his anti-US rhetoric from the global energy market (Ironically now we have to deal with the same thing with Chavez in Venezuela) and remove him as a risk to the stability of the Middle East (unknowing that his removal would make the Middle East worse) with the best of (US-centric) intentions, but totally fucked up the implementation due to the sectarian strife that came about.

[Nick]

To put the effects of war into some context, here are some new photos have been released of Abu Ghraib. (Presumably from around the time the initial ones were leaked).

http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... lideView=6 NSFW

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Don't care.

[Nick]

Why are you posting in the thread then?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why are you posting in the thread then?

Here you go trolling again. I didn't realize this was a thread for only anti-abu ghraib abuse folks. Sorry.

[Funkmasterr]

I am not sure who the group of people in the pictures are and to be honest I'm not very interested in finding out. However I will say if they were a threat to us I'm all for torturing them in the most inhumane way possible.

[Nick]

Mid, trolling? come on! wise up.

Are you pro-Abu Ghraib abuse or something? Are human rights irrelevant to you? Can you not understand why they might be to some people?

Why are you making a VV career out of being contrary for the sake of it?


Also: Funk, whatever happened to "innocent until presumed guilty? Does that only apply to non muslims?

[Funkmasterr]

Mid, trolling? come on! wise up.

Are you pro-Abu Ghraib abuse or something? Are human rights irrelevant to you? Can you not understand why they might be to some people?

Why are you making a VV career out of being contrary for the sake of it?


Also: Funk, whatever happened to "innocent until presumed guilty? Does that only apply to non muslims?

Are you implying that the U.S. should hand over people that tried to ambush us, or were responsible for a car bombing, etc, etc etc, to some kind of international organization to try? Give me a break, this is war time and that shit does not and will not happen. I seriously doubt anyone we are treating that way there is in any way innocent.

You know what it really boils down to though? Neither you or I REALLY know how things are happening over there. You site what you read and see in very liberal and/or anti-american, anti-bush media sources and while I'm sure you and a lot of others would love for that to be fact, that isn't necessarily the case.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Mid, trolling? come on! wise up.

Are you pro-Abu Ghraib abuse or something? Are human rights irrelevant to you? Can you not understand why they might be to some people?

Why are you making a VV career out of being contrary for the sake of it?


Also: Funk, whatever happened to "innocent until presumed guilty? Does that only apply to non muslims?

Sigh. It's a war. They are treating enemy prisoners like pieces of shit. I have no problem with it at all. I don't like people doing it for fun, but if they are doing it for a reason, then I'm fine with it all. If a few rogue assholes were dumb enough to take pictures, then so be it. Maybe they get in trouble. It's really way down on the list of important issues. My pyscho neighbor putting up Private Property signs all over his yard ranks higher than enemy prisoners getting abused.

[Nick]

The problem being that if you hadn't invaded the bloody country in the first place for no legitimate reason you wouldn't even have enemy forces. The fact you create enemy forces and then brutalise them for defending themselves is the issue here.

Edit: yes, its a simplification, but the general gist remains valid.

Edit2: Also, If the invading country doesn't practice what it preaches how can it expect to be taken seriously by anyone else? The answer is, they can't (and aren't).

Edit3: Funk, does the USA have the right to go wherever it wants, imprison whoever it wants, kill whoever it wants and then play the "we're the real victims" card?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The fact is, the military was stupid for letting their soldiers have cell phones and cameras.

[Truant]

Why are you posting in the thread then?

Here you go trolling again. I didn't realize this was a thread for only anti-abu ghraib abuse folks. Sorry.

Fact is Mid, you ARE trolling. Just like I said you would when this contest began. Which you completely denied at the time.

Way to go.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I never said such a thing. WTF are you talking about? Stay on topic and stop trolling me.

[Truant]

I never said such a thing. WTF are you talking about? Stay on topic and stop trolling me.

Really?

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

Midnyte's only contribution to these challenges will be to try and troll/flame/bait Nick at every possible opportunity. As witnessed by his starting three threads and telling Nick to get started while not starting Funk's threads.

You couldn't be more wrong. I wasn't aware Funk has made thread ideas. I'll go look and post those then.

Only want to troll and don't like it when you get trolled?
Cry more.

[Boogahz]

I never said such a thing. WTF are you talking about? Stay on topic and stop trolling me.

Really?

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

Midnyte's only contribution to these challenges will be to try and troll/flame/bait Nick at every possible opportunity. As witnessed by his starting three threads and telling Nick to get started while not starting Funk's threads.

You couldn't be more wrong. I wasn't aware Funk has made thread ideas. I'll go look and post those then.

Only want to troll and don't like it when you get trolled?
Cry more.

Well, in all fairness, he never said what you couldn't be more wrong about Maybe he just meant the threads for Nick's challenges without Funks!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Truant said what my only contributions to these threads would be. I said that he couldn't be more wrong about that assertion. I fail to see the problem here.

[Nick]

Don't care.

Here you go trolling again

boy, you fanatical Global-Warminites are thick headed.

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

There are others, I don't have time atm to find them.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Betcha I can get Spang to type "Don't care".

[Spang]

Don't care.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I win.

[Spang]

Last edited by Midnyte_Ragebringer on February 28, 2008, 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Wow. Even someone I thought was a bleeding heart lib, is making some sense. Good for her.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1a_ ... QD8V3K9LO1

Jolie Sees Benefit in US Surge in Iraq
By LINDSAY HOLMWOOD – 19 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Actress and humanitarian activist Angelina Jolie said Thursday that the reinforcement of U.S. troops in Iraq has created an opportunity for humanitarian programs to boost assistance for Iraqi refugees.

In an op-ed piece published by the Washington Post, titled "A Reason to Stay in Iraq," Jolie details the plight of refugees and says their conditions have not improved since she visited the country last August to urge governments to provide more support.

Jolie, who has been a U.N. goodwill ambassador since 2001, was in Baghdad earlier this month to again highlight the refugee problem. She talked with Gen. David Petraeus, the American military commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the U.S. Embassy said.

Petraeus "told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis" as much as possible, "which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made," the actress wrote.

She said she stressed to Iraqi officials there must be a coherent plan for helping some 2 million Iraqis who are taking advantage of the downturn in violence to begin trickling back to abandoned homes from havens elsewhere in the country. A similar number fled Iraq to escape the bloodshed.

"It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people," Jolie wrote. "But it is not too early to start working on solutions."

The actress, who works on behalf of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, urged America's presidential candidates and congressional leaders to step up financing for aid to displaced Iraqis. UNHCR has asked for $261 million this year — "less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq," she wrote.

Addressing the question of whether the "troop surge" has worked, Jolie said that "I can only state what I witnessed."

"When I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq," she wrote. "They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible."

[Nick]

So "Holywood movie stars opinions are totally irrelevant until they start agreeing with me" would be the general gist of the above post.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You cannot stay on topic can you? Always the troll.

Her opinion means shit to me. However it means a lot to the masses of realty TV fans, gossip show addicts, etc. which are a large part of the population. It's also nice to see a hollywood actor take a logical stance instead of the usual anti-republican stance they take on every issue no matter what.