Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Hurkyl]

You are pre-supposing that the Iraqi people needed to be freed by the US military whilst I do not.

Am not -- I'm expressing my irritation with people pretending that not-so-witty comments are a good substitute for answering a question.

You could have just said:

"The UN would have freed them in another two years without any violence"

in the first place, which is nice, because it answers the question, states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion.

 

[BobG]

The ridiculousness of the reasons put forth to justify an illegal invasion of a country never ceases to amaze me, and I can only remind myself that the number of people who still have this illogical thinking are decreasing in number--thank goodness.

This decrease in the number of people supporting the war isn't a good thing - it's exactly the reason it's so important for the President to give honest reasons for going to war in the first place.

The link between Saddam and terrorism hasn't panned out. We haven't found weapons of mass destruction. We don't really know why Bush chose to invade Iraq.

Was it to spread democracy in the Middle East? That wasn't the reason he gave over two years ago. Why didn't he give it then? Because the reasons he gives today wouldn't have generated enough support? There are some who might feel that the reasons given back then aren't important - the important thing is that Bush drove America to do something that needed doing.

The problem with this idea is that if the reasons for starting the war aren't good enough to sway America, then those reasons won't be good enough to sustain the war, either. Rather than America feeling like it has to finish a job it started, people feel betrayed. They don't see the impact of leaving Iraq - they see casualties and insurgencies of a war that hasn't turned out to be the product the Bush administration advertised:

Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

Here's the bigger problem with the idea that getting us to Iraq is worth it, even if you have to lie to do it. There's a lot of Congressmen who face re-election in 2006 - both Republican and Democratic. They can't (and probably shouldn't) stand against the opinions of the folks that elected them to represent their views. Congress is starting to put pressure on Bush to at least start considering an exit from Iraq.

The idea that we might leave Iraq in the middle of the job is a realistic possibility. Congress might make it through the 2006 election just by shifting pressure to Bush. If we're still in Iraq around 2008, the pressure to leave will be even higher. If we leave in the middle of the job and Iraq disintegrates into all out civil war in the middle of the Middle East, this invasion will be the biggest disaster and the biggest disgrace in American history.

Joseph Wilson (the ambassador who's wife was exposed as a CIA agent), appeared before Congress recently and knocked the current discussion on Iraq, saying they should have had that discussion before the war. He's right. But he also overlooks a couple of things. If our country were a true direct democracy, we'd never accomplish anything - we'd be locked in endless debates. The executive branch has the power it does in order to allow a rapid response to events. That ability doesn't exist if Congress debates every executive response in intricate detail - they have to put some faith in the President that the case he's making is an honest one or the country has no rapid response.

Here's the biggest reason the President has to state his case for war honestly, even if that risks having the war aborted before it ever gets started. Next event that occurs that demands a rapid response, especially if that event occurred within the next four years, will the country be able to make a rapid response or will we hesitate and debate the issue until disaster strikes again?

 

[Art]

Am not -- I'm expressing my irritation with people pretending that not-so-witty comments are a good substitute for answering a question.

You could have just said:

"The UN would have freed them in another two years without any violence"

in the first place, which is nice, because it answers the question, states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion.

Personally I thought that pointing out the futility of liberating people by separating their soul from their body was an extremely effective way of highlighting the absurdity of the 'Iraqi freedom argument' but next time I'm constructing an argument remind me to consult you first Might I also suggest that perhaps instead of using this thread to vent your "irritation" it would be "nice" if you contributed your opinions on the subject matter with references and sources, objectively and without rancour, "which states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion".

 

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that most of the freed Iraqis, in fact, did not have 500lb bombs dropped on their heads. The only thing your response shows absurd is an absurd reformulation of the original sentiment.

And I'm not just venting -- I have this hope that I can incite people to write better posts on these topics, or at the very least help people see the problems with much of what's written. (And I learn a thing or two sometimes as well. )

 

[Pengwuino]

Art, i just read through the whole thread and you did not provide any sources for how many nationalities are represented in Iraq and your "not-so-whitty" comments as someone described only show how you are simply dodging the issues and ignoring facts. The idea that this war is not worth it because a few thousand civilians died doesn't stand up to the fact that the country is a country of over 25 million citizens. You can also not logically contend that the US is wrong because a few thousand civilians died because before that, 300,000 civilians were murdered by Saddam's government.

Please stop contradicting yourself and/or lieing.

 

[Art]

Art, i just read through the whole thread and you did not provide any sources for how many nationalities are represented in Iraq

Did I claim to?

and your "not-so-whitty" comments as someone described only show how you are simply dodging the issues and ignoring facts.

What issues am I dodging or ignoring?? Please be specific

The idea that this war is not worth it because a few thousand civilians died doesn't stand up to the fact that the country is a country of over 25 million citizens.

What is your point? That there is enough of them that they can afford to lose a few thousand here and there?

You can also not logically contend that the US is wrong because a few thousand civilians died because before that, 300,000 civilians were murdered by Saddam's government.

Please provide references/sources for your fig of 300,000. And it certainly wasn't worth it for the thousands of dead civilians.

Please stop contradicting yourself and/or lieing.

Please be specific re contradictions and be careful with your accusations of lying.
p.s. Please use spellcheck. It is very difficult to decipher your posts at times and so I'm afraid if you can't be bothered to correct them then I will not bother to try reading them in future.

 

[Muadib]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

 

[alexandra]

The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

The invasion is NOT about a group of Americans shooting at Iraqi insurgents. It consists of Americans and foreigners (the 'coalition'). Iraqi insurgents are targets of the 'coalition', but so are Iraqi civilians, Iraq's infrastructure and Iraq's oil. The Iraqis' allies are simply helping them out, just as the Americans' allies are helping them out. It works both ways (much as some would like it not to). Iraqis have friends and allies too, you know.

 

[alexandra]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

We've also discussed this here, and I stated that from my reading and analysis of available information, I don't think that Israel is the prime beneficiary, although Israel undoubtedly plays a major role in the region generally and will probably land up benefiting from this conflict. It is not, as far as I can tell, the main reason why this conflict is happening.

 

[sid_galt]

The invasion is NOT about a group of Americans shooting at Iraqi insurgents. It consists of Americans and foreigners (the 'coalition'). Iraqi insurgents are targets of the 'coalition', but so are Iraqi civilians, Iraq's infrastructure and Iraq's oil. The Iraqis' allies are simply helping them out, just as the Americans' allies are helping them out. It works both ways (much as some would like it not to). Iraqis have friends and allies too, you know.

which consists of slaughtering the Iraqis? Wonderful!

 

[alexandra]

which consists of slaughtering the Iraqis? Wonderful!

sid_galt, this is not a good counterargument to my original counterargument to Hurkyl. Nevertheless, here is my response to what you write - this is what it boils down to: innocent Iraqi civilians - children, women, and men who are NOT at all guilty of anything - are being slaughtered by all sorts of groups now. These are the effects of 'pre-emptive wars to effect regime change' (or whatever the reason is *cough*oil*cough* for this disaster).

What the heck is a 'pre-emptive war' anyway? How ridiculous. A war to prevent a war? It doesn't even make logical sense read as an English sentence. I cannot believe so many people support this slaughter and killing, don't question it in any way. This attitude is so uncivilised, so barbaric - how on Earth can one justify these things at this supposedly 'enlightened' stage of 'civilisation'? This is barbarous. It's sickening that people not only condone this by being silent, but actively and openly support it. Well, go for it - support them while they kill, support them while they destroy the whole world. Let's applaud these great, heroic deeds.

Oh, and by the way - enjoy your oil - just remember at what cost you are getting it... Not, by the way, that the oil is yours - the most astounding thing about all this is that only a few already obscenely rich people - parasites - benefit from this; most people, in one way or another, have to pay a heavy price: tax dollars and lives to finance the oil profits - and all of it done on the basis of lies that are obvious for anyone prepared to just read the available information to see.

 

[Hurkyl]

my original counterargument

I didn't see anything in your "counterargument" that opposes my assertions that the insurgency is a lot more than Iraqis shooting at American invaders.

Whether the insurgents are blowing up Iraqi civilians to frighten them away from the temptations offered by the coalition is a different question all together.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

What the heck is a 'pre-emptive war' anyway? How ridiculous. A war to prevent a war? It doesn't even make logical sense read as an English sentence. I cannot believe so many people support this slaughter and killing, don't question it in any way. This attitude is so uncivilised, so barbaric - how on Earth can one justify these things at this supposedly 'enlightened' stage of 'civilisation'? This is barbarous. It's sickening that people not only condone this by being silent, but actively and openly support it. Well, go for it - support them while they kill, support them while they destroy the whole world. Let's applaud these great, heroic deeds.

Actually the term "preemptive war" was not coined by the Bush administration - it goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. Here is wikipedia's definition:

"A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization."

Oh, and by the way - enjoy your oil - just remember at what cost you are getting it... Not, by the way, that the oil is yours - the most astounding thing about all this is that only a few already obscenely rich people - parasites - benefit from this; most people, in one way or another, have to pay a heavy price: tax dollars and lives to finance the oil profits - and all of it done on the basis of lies that are obvious for anyone prepared to just read the available information to see.

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

 

[Muaddib]

25 million people freed? Don't you think this could have be done without paying such a high price, including many people who have died? Did we preserve freedom for Americans? No--that means we are not defending our country. And we won't win anything by shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

Some people keep saying that there was no reason for us to have gone to war in Iraq. But even one of the governments that was against the war in Iraq gave us reasons for years to oust Saddam, and make a regime change.

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

Excerpted from.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Not only that, evidence that the authorities from Spain found linked one of the terrorists who planned the attacks of 9/11 in Spain to the Iraqi embassy. He had been invited to a party in Spain by the Iraqi embassy.

Among the many pieces of evidence that points to the fact that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, here is a link to a site which gives an overview to much of that evidence.
http://cshink.com/iraq_al-qaeda_connection.htm

Saddam was breaking the UN sanction agreements. His forces fired upon the coalition in Kuwait at the beginning of this war, shooting scuds and Al Samoud missiles which were directly in breach of the UN sanctions as the Al Samoud could travel a lot farther than the 93 miles the missiles were supposed to fly, and the scuds were completely banned from Iraq. Saddam's forces even opened fire against US and Brittish aircraft before the war as they were enforcing the no-fly zone in northern Iraq so that Saddam wouldn't continue murdering kurds by chemical attacks. This alone was a declaration of war.

As we can see, Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, he was at least trying to revive his wmd programs, if those weapons weren't moved as he had more than enough time to do so, and he had plans on attacking the US with terrorist attacks.

All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

 

[Mercator]

All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

The incessant and fierce resistance for more than two years now, is enough to refute all your arguments.

 

[Muaddib]

The incessant and fierce resistance for more than two years now, is enough to refute all your arguments.

Why exactly is that? We are making sure, or trying to, to take the battle outside of the US. We have seen throughout the years how Islamic terrorists have been trying, and succeded, in bringing their war to the United States, and other countries such as Spain. Islamic extremists have even trying to bring this same war of theirs to countries such as France and Germany, even though both these countries were against the war in Iraq.

BTW, how exactly does the "incessant and fierce resistance" refutes the evidence that Saddam was going to carry terrorist attacks in the US, and that he was in direct violation of the agreements set forth by the UN?

 

[vanesch]

Not only that, evidence that the authorities from Spain found linked one of the terrorists who planned the attacks of 9/11 in Spain to the Iraqi embassy. He had been invited to a party in Spain by the Iraqi embassy.

So if tomorrow I succeed in having myself invited to a party of the German embassy in Paris, and go and blow up, say a few weeks later, the Pentagon, this is a reason for a war on Germany ??

 

[alexandra]

Actually the term "preemptive war" was not coined by the Bush administration - it goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. Here is wikipedia's definition:

"A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization."

This is fine, as definitions go. However, just because a concept is defined does not mean one has to support its essence. I think this 'pre-emptive war' actually caused a conflict situation that would otherwise not have existed. It was pure, plain bullying, based on what everyone knew at the time (and has now been proved) to be lies. That, in any case, is how the situation is perceived by many.

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

I am not naive, which is precisely why I continue to insist that as long as capitalism remains (a system based on greed and lack of caring for one's fellow human beings and the environment in general) we will live in continuously escalating crisis situations - more conflicts, environmental degradation to the point of no return, etc. Just like Orwell predicted in '1984' - he was just a few years off in his predictions, but it's certainly happening now. Actually, I'm wrong there - it's been '1984' for ages, but it's getting really bad now. One thing that has definitely changed over the past three years is that Big Brother is well and truly here now.

 

[alexandra]

The link between Saddam and terrorism hasn't panned out. We haven't found weapons of mass destruction. We don't really know why Bush chose to invade Iraq.

Many people seem to strongly suspect that the reason was access to and control of oil (resources) and strategic reasons (control of the Middle East). There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to those motivations.

There are some who might feel that the reasons given back then aren't important - the important thing is that Bush drove America to do something that needed doing.

Why? Why did it need doing? How would the US or the UK feel if some other leader decided that the best thing they could do for US/UK people was invade their country, change their 'regime', destroy their government and their infrastructure, and steal their resources?

The idea that we might leave Iraq in the middle of the job is a realistic possibility. Congress might make it through the 2006 election just by shifting pressure to Bush. If we're still in Iraq around 2008, the pressure to leave will be even higher. If we leave in the middle of the job and Iraq disintegrates into all out civil war in the middle of the Middle East, this invasion will be the biggest disaster and the biggest disgrace in American history.

There is no avoiding the disaster and disgrace, though - it has already happened.

Joseph Wilson (the ambassador who's wife was exposed as a CIA agent), appeared before Congress recently and knocked the current discussion on Iraq, saying they should have had that discussion before the war. He's right. But he also overlooks a couple of things. If our country were a true direct democracy, we'd never accomplish anything - we'd be locked in endless debates. The executive branch has the power it does in order to allow a rapid response to events. That ability doesn't exist if Congress debates every executive response in intricate detail - they have to put some faith in the President that the case he's making is an honest one or the country has no rapid response.

But war is a very serious matter - perhaps exceptions should be made for such serious decisions; perhaps there should be more checks and balances, and ordinary people should have more say about these devastating decisions made in their names?

Here's the biggest reason the President has to state his case for war honestly, even if that risks having the war aborted before it ever gets started. Next event that occurs that demands a rapid response, especially if that event occurred within the next four years, will the country be able to make a rapid response or will we hesitate and debate the issue until disaster strikes again?

You speak as if there is a link between 'disaster' (are you referring to 9/11?) and Iraq. It has now been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt (despite Mr Bush trying to link the two again in his most recent speech) that there is absolutely no link between Iraq and that event. The first person to televise condolences to the American people for what happened was Saddam Hussein. I (like most people) watched the events of 9/11 24 hours per day, and I saw this. And I figured it out right then, as I watched Iraq's president give his condolences: he knew that this was going to be used to achieve US foreign policy objectives to get rid of him. It was obvious, from the start, what was going to happen.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Some people keep saying that there was no reason for us to have gone to war in Iraq. But even one of the governments that was against the war in Iraq gave us reasons for years to oust Saddam, and make a regime change.

...All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

The term Just War has been mentioned so many times, yet as usual it is ignored. If a person is being threatened by another person, what can the police do? They can't do anything until a crime is actually committed.

Aside from this analogy, good, solid evidence that Saddam was plotting terrorist acts has never been found. Once again the differences between Bin Laden's agenda and Saddam's has been mentioned many times, yet ignored as well. Saddam was only interested in maintaining his power and wealth. He had no ideological motives to invest resources in terrorist activities -- And why would he bring the wrath of the US down on himself even harder? What would he have to gain? It makes no sense. The most he would have done would be to sell materials to terrorists for profit, but why should terrorists bother when such things can be obtained more easily from elsewhere (Pakistan), or better yet stolen from the USSR? Also, Bin Laden and most of the Arab world have never cared for Saddam, who is viewed as a religious pretender.

No, this war was NOT necessary, and would only be necessary if the US was directly attacked by Iraq--and clearly we were not. Stop listening to the propaganda.

 

[Mercator]

The fact that there is a fierce resistance for over two years now, which cannot be controllled by 130.000 foreign soldiers, means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population. which means that Iraq is not liberated, as Americans claim, but occupied. Acting against the will of the local population means this invasion is NOT justified.

 

[Hurkyl]

means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population.

Must it?


In any case, a large part is not necessarily most, or even anywhere near a majority of the local population.

 

[Mercator]

Must it?


In any case, a large part is not necessarily most, or even anywhere near a majority of the local population.

Can you give me an example of a country that was REALLY liberated, that put up such a fierce resistance for two years?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

I am not naive, which is precisely why I continue to insist that as long as capitalism remains (a system based on greed and lack of caring for one's fellow human beings and the environment in general) we will live in continuously escalating crisis situations - more conflicts, environmental degradation to the point of no return, etc. Just like Orwell predicted in '1984' - he was just a few years off in his predictions, but it's certainly happening now. Actually, I'm wrong there - it's been '1984' for ages, but it's getting really bad now. One thing that has definitely changed over the past three years is that Big Brother is well and truly here now.

it is not just capitalists that use oil. communists manage to use plenty of oil as well. all of civilization depends on oil, infact.

 

[Muaddib]

Not really, many of the insurgents, which are made of Islamic extremists, go to Iraq from many countries around the world, even from countries such as France, England, Iran (of course) Lybia, etc, etc.

It was but a month ago I think, that real Iraqis, took up arms and attacked a bunch of insurgents that were preparing to attack some local stores.

Also, if you take a look at the headlines, insurgents are killing more iraqi civilians than they are killing Iraqi police, Iraqi military and even coalition forces. If insurgents were mostly Iraqis, why are they killing so many of their own people?

The fact that there is a fierce resistance for over two years now, which cannot be controllled by 130.000 foreign soldiers, means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population. which means that Iraq is not liberated, as Americans claim, but occupied. Acting against the will of the local population means this invasion is NOT justified.

 

[Muaddib]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

Humm, i wonder why your name resembles so closely mine.

BTW, i think your statement is racist.

 

[Muaddib]

So if tomorrow I succeed in having myself invited to a party of the German embassy in Paris, and go and blow up, say a few weeks later, the Pentagon, this is a reason for a war on Germany ??

On that piece of evidence alone no...but how many other pieces of evidence did I present in here, and why did you not mention those too? i just mentioned some of the evidence for the coalition having gone to war with Iraq, there is quite a lot more evidence.

it is not just one piece of evidence that made the case for the war. About the stocpiles of wmd, there are still a lot of unawsered questions. Saddam and his regime had more than enough time to hide and transfer those stocpiles of wmd. Part of the agreement that Saddam was supposed to adhere to said that he must destroy every document, equipment and military weapons that were used for wmd, and he didn't.

There were tons of documents which were found in Iraq and dealt with how to restart wmd programs, several Iraqi scientists were told to bury and hide centrifuges and other technologies needed to enrich uranium, for a time after the western world stopped searching for Iraq's wmd programs.

There were entire missiles which are used only to carry chemicals which were found in Iraq, there were rockets for missiles which were banned from Iraq and were in possesion of Iraq at least a year before the war started, and were later found in scrapyards around the world.

There were discrepancies in the quantities of HMX that Iraq was supposed to have, and they were supposed to report exactly the quantities in their possesion. HMX is used for construction and also for the detonation of atomic weapons.

 

[Mercator]

On that piece of evidence alone no...but how many other pieces of evidence did I present in here, and why did you not mention those too? i just mentioned some of the evidence for the coalition having gone to war with Iraq, there is quite a lot more evidence.

it is not just one piece of evidence that made the case for the war. About the stocpiles of wmd, there are still a lot of unawsered questions. Saddam and his regime had more than enough time to hide and transfer those stocpiles of wmd. Part of the agreement that Saddam was supposed to adhere to said that he must destroy every document, equipment and military weapons that were used for wmd, and he didn't.

There were tons of documents which were found in Iraq and dealt with how to restart wmd programs, several Iraqi scientists were told to bury and hide centrifuges and other technologies needed to enrich uranium, for a time after the western world stopped searching for Iraq's wmd programs.

There were entire missiles which are used only to carry chemicals which were found in Iraq, there were rockets for missiles which were banned from Iraq and were in possesion of Iraq at least a year before the war started, and were later found in scrapyards around the world.

There were discrepancies in the quantities of HMX that Iraq was supposed to have, and they were supposed to report exactly the quantities in their possesion. HMX is used for construction and also for the detonation of atomic weapons.

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

The decision not to use them was probably wise. When losing seems inevitable, why dig the hole deeper? It would be harder to maintain sympathy from the rest of the world if they are using the very weapons they have been accused of making.

There is also the small matter that Saddam used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war and also on a minority of his own population, the Kurds. This was one of the reasons that the Bush administration thought they could safely assume the "moral high ground" since Saddam was clearly not a nice person; however, they failed to realize just how many people's hearts would bleed for the tyrannt. Whether the US supported him or not in the past does not change this, there were many alliances made and betrayed after the cold war. You could also argue that supporting Saddam was a mistake, just as was the US support for Castro, Aristide, and Noriega. All would later be disposed (well, except Castro, but they sure tried).

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

 

[Mercator]

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

I would hold you responsible for your mistake. And since we are not talking about mosnters , but human beings, I would let the law decide what to do with the monster. Would you prefer to play God?

 

[alexandra]

it is not just capitalists that use oil. communists manage to use plenty of oil as well. all of civilization depends on oil, infact.

It is true that all forms of society need to use energy resources, but these energy resources need not be oil. I am not proposing that we revert back to some pre-capitalist primitive form of society. The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources. As long as these powerful interests prevail, we will not make the necessary progress to shift to other, more sustainable, sources of energy. Furthermore, capitalism is based on an ideology of greed - profits come first ("the bottom line", and all that). As the damaging, non-renewable energy resources become scarcer, the powerful corporations controlling their resources will charge more and more for them - they see big bucks in the near future, big bucks they will not forego for any 'softie, liberal' reason like saving the environment. This is the danger I see in capitalism and why I think it so important that people question the system of capitalism itself.

 

[alexandra]

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

Which community, q? How can you make such a statement if you live safely on another continent and none of this carnage personally affects you? It is innocent Iraqi people who are dying - isn't it a bit presumptious to say that this is ok and best for their 'community'? In any case, what is happening in Iraq at the moment is a situation has been set up for civil war (and, in fact, US administrators have recently admitted that they are talking to some insurgency group leaders to try to get them 'onside' - so they are deliberately setting up a civil war scenario). Civil war surely cannot be 'good for the community'? One thing it is good for, though, is foreign control: the old 'divide and rule' principle.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources.

If that is true, then why didn't the Soviet union create clean energy? They had around 50 years to do so, yet didn't, despite the lack of capitalist pressure since they were getting their own oil for themselves domestically and from Chechnya, Africa and the Middle East. Certainly they were as technologically advanced (or nearly so) as the US.

Or is the more-likely-yet-less-conspiratorial answer that the scientific and engineering know-how is still currently being developed, and does not yet exist (but will be soon according to scientists working on nuclear fusion)?

(and, in fact, US administrators have recently admitted that they are talking to some insurgency group leaders to try to get them 'onside' - so they are deliberately setting up a civil war scenario).

I don't know where you get your news from, but common sense dictates that the worst thing that could happen to the US in iraq right now would be a civil war. Why would they be trying to create one? That makes no sense.

If the US military were not presently in Iraq, then that could possibly make sense - infact, in the past war was encouraged between Iraq and Iran. But given that the US military is present there, losing your entire force in a civil war wouldn't make much sense would it?

Or put this way: if the US is after Iraq's oil, it doesn't make much sense to lose that objective in a civil-war scenario, does it?

 

[Muaddib]

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

He, or actually some of those under his command, did use some of those banned weaponry they were not supposed to have against the coalition. Saddam knew that even with the small amount of wmd he had, he could not destroy the coalition forces. All he could do was try to make the world believe he did not have them, by hiding the stockpiles of wmd, and wait for the coalition to leave. He could have thought that when no stockpiles of wmd were found, he would be let go, and then once the coalition left Iraq, he could restart his wmd programs.

BTW, it was actually the previous president of Iraq, Al Bakr who gave Saddam (his cousin) power in the Ba'ath party as vice president, and as the president grew older, Saddam , by himself, kept consolidating his power until he made Al Bakr resign as president... it was not the CIA who did this.

 

[Muaddib]

It is true that all forms of society need to use energy resources, but these energy resources need not be oil. I am not proposing that we revert back to some pre-capitalist primitive form of society. The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources.
......
This is the danger I see in capitalism and why I think it so important that people question the system of capitalism itself.

You do not understand the situation then. The communist system, or the people's revolution... have also been using oil for a very long time, and they are still using it...while their own people suffer more than anyone in most capitalistic systems. i know this because half of my family is suffering under a communist regime, and i was in one until i was 7 almost 8 years old.

All societies nowadays depend on oil for pretty much everything. We need oil to transport and process food. We need oil to make derivatives like plastic, which are used to save lives, and for a whole miriad of technologies needed for today's societies to function.

There is a whole lot more danger in communism, or "the people's revolution"...than in capitalism. I brought up communism into this topic because I can see where you are going.

A lot of young people, and even old people who have never seen what communism does to the people and a country, nowadays are falling once more for the communist propaganda, blaming all the problems in the world because of capitalism...which is not true.