Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote

[Whomp]

Moderator Action: MT5678--Please use the edit key rather than double and triple posting.

 

[neviden]

@Merkindball: you mean.. besides the facts?

Iranians don't hate the US. They are afraid of US. With good reason I may add. They only have to look at what happened to their “proclaimed axis of evil” neighbor to figure out that should be DEFENITLY afraid of an US attack.

If I were Iranian I would definitely cause trouble for the US in Iraq. To keep them busy enough to keep them from invading my country.

 

[mrt144]

Mr. T. Just a little curious. Do you have anything to back your claims?

how is the distribution of food and vaccines under the supervision and protection of the US army even up for debate?

you can search for government spending on iraq. its around the 500b mark for 4 years of engagement.

 

[brennan]

The US didn't impose these sanctions either. The UN did. The US didn't let Saddam keep his dictatorship. The UN did...

Show me where I said the US imposed UN sanctions? Show me where I said this is the fault of the US? Until 1991 Iraq was still feeding its people and Iraqis were getting a decent education. It took sanctions to change that, not Saddam. It was for that reason the oil-for-food programme was set up in the first place.

The US didn't let Saddam keep his dictatorship. The UN did...

Funny, I seem to remember it being mostly US tanks that withdrew from Iraq after the '91 ceasefire. I thought that was a mistake at the time, but nobody listens to lefties around here...

Iraq was a state sponsor of Israeli terrorism. How does that not qualify for being in the war on terror? Why does the War on Terror need to be synonomous for "war on Al Queda?" How morally bankrupt is that stance?

Saddam Hussein offered money to the families of Palestinian 'martyrs' in a pathetic and wholly transparent attempt to look like he wasn't just a tin-pot dictator, i'd hardly categorise that as 'state sponsorship of terrorism', more like a 'bad PR job'.

You consider the Iran/Iraq war as 'things were going fine'? You think the invasion of Kuwait was "things were going fine'?

Hooo boy.

Hooo boy, someone's lost the ability to read again. We were talking about education standards in Iraq, there were sources and quotes and stuff...

Funny...have they had the same effect on Israel? Have hundreds of thousands perished because of those terrible, terrible sanctions?

*looks up 'sanctions on Israel'* ... finds no reports of economic sanctions on Israel by the UN...

Hooo boy.

 

[MT5678]

Brennan (funny name, BTW) is right.
The US and UK (sorta) imposed the sanctions.
UN diplomats tried to stop them.
I have the details in an earlier post.

 

[Merkinball]

I could say lots of things and pass them off as "facts." However, if I'm having a debate, and it goes outside ideological beliefs and opinions, I will state facts and then provide a citation as to where I obtained those facts from. Sources can often be called into question. I could say...ohhhh...we've found old pre 1991 WMD's in Iraq. But you guys would all go in a tizzy and say, THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!! THAT'S NOT A FACT!!!! But then I could cite FoxNews and you'd then say, "HA! Faux News! That's not TRUE!" Which is why I'm asking for some citations.

I'm not dismissing the fact that food and vaccines are under the protection of the US military in the slightest. But I am calling into question the idea that somehow water carriers and forcefully witheld vaccinations under the trade embargo. I'd like to know the source, and when and where it happened so I can investigate this matter on my own. So far as I'm concerned, something like that, without a citation, is nothing but political fodder.

all under the strict guidence and supervision of the united states. Absent us what would happen? Catastrophe? So we should spend 125b a year to ensure that 50k dont die from disease? - Mr T

Unfortunately the situation is not that simplistic. Stop demagouging.

Show me where I said the US imposed UN sanctions? - brennan

I apologize, my comments to you were in the first paragraph of said post. I didn't put in quotes MT734028308203, so I can understand how confusion would arise.

Funny, I seem to remember it being mostly US tanks that withdrew from Iraq after the '91 ceasefire. I thought that was a mistake at the time, but nobody listens to lefties around here... - brennan

It wasn't just US tanks. The Persian Gulf War was a UN mandated war that involved some thirty nations. The UN Security resolution for the war was only the liberation of Kuwait. It wasn't a war to get rid of Saddam. Bush Sr. WANTED to remove Saddam, but couldn't because that measure was not supported by the UN Security Council. What Bush DID do was support the Shi'ite rebellion via the CIA in which Saddam massacred over 100,000 Shi'ite folk. I agree with you. We should have finished the job the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Saddam Hussein offered money to the families of Palestinian 'martyrs' in a pathetic and wholly transparent attempt to look like he wasn't just a tin-pot dictator, i'd hardly categorise that as 'state sponsorship of terrorism', more like a 'bad PR job'.

It went a little beyond that...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004

In regards to Abu Abbas hijacking an Egypt Air Jet:

The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.

How do we know this?


The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than this man, Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.” Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxi’s coalition, the Italian government collapsed. 11

Abu Abbas lived comfortably in Baghdad after 1994 as one of Husseins guests.

Abu Nidal?

Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.

Do you know who Abdul Rahman Yassien is? Yeah, he did WTC attack 93. Oh! He was raised in afluent Ba'athist household as well.

Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”


Iraq's embassy was directly tied to bombings in the Phillipines just before GWII.

Do you know about the government sponsored terrorist training camp of Salman Pak? No? Look it up.

Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”

It really goes on and on, but you get the point right?

 

[mrt144]

the net life gain might be minimal considering the violence. quote me iraqi deaths per year due to violence, malnutrition and preventable medical causes. furthermore do you have any "facts" that speak to a realistic future or time frame for that future?

I love being a cynic but sometimes the cynical approach is the one that is closest to the reality of the situation.

and how am i being overly simplistic. every reason shown and summed together could have been handled or dealt with for much cheaper, or simply ignored as it wasnt our problem to begin with.

500b spent to stop sponsorship of terrorism in israel. theres still terrorism there.
500b spent to prevent deaths of iraqis. theres still iraqis dying from preventable death causes.
500b spent to topple a dictator. now people are terrorized by fellow countrymen. dictators still exist in the world
500b spent to do this that and the other, but the problems it seeked to solve are still unsolved and worse
500b spent to make the U.S. lose international cooperation from key players in world politics. priceless.

 

[neviden]

It really goes on and on, but you get the point right?

The problem with US government data was best explained with the whole “WMD/Al Qaeda/freedom is the reason why we must invade Iraq” story. Well.. we know how true all that was, don’t we..

Now, when the US government says anything it is always looked at suspiciously. They can say “Iran is attacking US soldiers in Iraq” and nobody will believe them. They can show pictures of objects marked as “Terrorist camp”, but it will look like those pictures with “Mobile WMD factory” on them. As long as an official reason for their Iraq invasion is “bring democracy and peace” there will be skepticism. And more you look at past US actions, less credible they become.

The fact is, that the US did everything it could to economically destroy Iraq with sanctions. I would be skeptical to the claim that it was deliberate if US didn’t have a rich history of such actions. I am more inclined to believe Unicef then the US government.

 

[mrt144]

Thats the biggest blow to the U.S. They screwed up big, really really big, and everyone found out, and now people dont trust them. Credibility of the United States should have been short sold in 2002!

 

[brennan]

It went a little beyond that...

According to wiki, the PFLP committed no terrorist acts after 1975, except during the al-aqsa intifada.

Abu Abbas did not hijack a plane. You might want to get your facts straight. He only fled to Iraq after becoming notorious. He was not bankrolled or trained by Saddam.

Abu Nidal who "lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002." when, according to wiki he "died of between one and four gunshot wounds ...believed by Palestinian sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein". BTW: did you notice that all his terrorist acts preceded his life in Iraq? Oh, yeah, except, aparently his first attack - planned in Iraq - which was, get this: an attack on a Saudi embassy. Not bankrolled or trained by Saddam.

Abdul 'raised in afluent Ba'athist household' Rahman was born in the US. OMG he was in Baghdad in 1994?! Ho hum: "Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing."

Salman Pak? Ok, I will look it up:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has since established that both the CIA and the DIA concluded that there was no evidence to support these claims.

Are you checking your sources at all?

...It really goes on and on, but you get the point right?

Uh huh.

 

[CanseiDeSerSexy]

Morally, no. Practically, yes.

 

[Merkinball]

and how am i being overly simplistic. every reason shown and summed together could have been handled or dealt with for much cheaper, or simply ignored as it wasnt our problem to begin with. - Mr T

Do you seriously think this? Do you uphold a complete isolationist viewpoint?

The fact is, that the US did everything it could to economically destroy Iraq with sanctions. I would be skeptical to the claim that it was deliberate if US didn’t have a rich history of such actions. I am more inclined to believe Unicef then the US government. - neviden

Do you know what UNICEF does for the world? Just about nothing. UNICEF, and the UN in general is simply a gigantic beauracracy and nothing more. UNICEF, in general, does very little on its own accept manage relief programs carried out by other organizations. It's been said within the aid community that UNICEF is the best place to go, to do nothing, get a nice car, a nice place to live, and make a crap load of money.

Thats the biggest blow to the U.S. They screwed up big, really really big, and everyone found out, and now people dont trust them. Credibility of the United States should have been short sold in 2002! - MrT

I won't deny this.

According to wiki, the PFLP committed no terrorist acts after 1975, except during the worst outbreak in Israel's history. - brennan

* fixed

Abu Abbas did not hijack a plane. You might want to get your facts straight. He only fled to Iraq after becoming notorious. He was not bankrolled or trained by Saddam. - brennan

Yeah, you're right, my mistake. It was a giant boat full of people. Ya know he shot a wheel chair bound man in the head, and then rolled him into the Mediterrainean?

I was under the impression that Abu Nidal was seriously ill, going to die, and killed himself. That's the story the press ran with, but I guess the Palestinian media is a trustworthy bunch. Anyhow, my point was that Saddam had a habit of harboring Abu Nidal types, as well Zarqawi. You know, like how the Taliban harbored Osama. Oh well...

Salman Pak:

A raid occurred [at a training camp near Salman Pak] in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters that we encountered from other country, not Iraq, and we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics...Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, some from other places. We have killed a number of them and we have captured a number of them. That's where the information came from...The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak. We did also find some other things there. We found some tanks and destroyed them, we found armored personnel carriers and destroyed them in small numbers. We destroyed buildings that were used for command and control and other buildings that were used for morale and welfare. We destroyed the complex. All of that when you roll it together, the reports, where they're from, why they might be here tell us there's a linkage between this regime and terrorism and that's something that we want to break...There's no indications of specific organizations that I'm aware of inside of that. We may still find it as with all operations that we conduct into a place, we look for more information after the operation is complete. We'll pull documents out of it and see what the documents say, if there's any links or indications. We'll look and see if there's any persons that are recovered that may not be Iraqi. All of that is detailed and deliberate work that happens after the fact.

So there were third country nationals. That were trained there for the insurgency. Interesting.

A November 2003 assessment from DIA noted that postwar exploitation of the facility found it "devoid of valuable intelligence." The assessment added that CIA exploitation "found nothing of intelligence value remained and assessed that Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cleaned it out." The DIA assessment concluded that "we do not know whether ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft at Salman Pak. Intelligence in late April 2003 indicated the plane had been dismantled. DIA and CENTCOM asses the plane was sold for scrap.


Oh, so... The Iragi intelligence removed all the evidence. I wonder why. They dismantled the plane. I wonder why.

What on EARTH makes you think that this facility was used for wholesome reasons...

 

[MT5678]

The fact is, that the US did everything it could to economically destroy Iraq with sanctions. I would be skeptical to the claim that it was deliberate if US didn’t have a rich history of such actions. I am more inclined to believe Unicef then the US government. - neviden

He's right.
The US will happily commit crimes and pass them off as if nothing happens.
From Dick Cheney: "Saddam ...evil man".
Note that he left out the words: THAT WE SUPPORTED!

Hey, Merkinball: You wanted Sources?
Look at back isues of the New York Times: 7 June 1991 by Friedman, 11 April 1991 by Cowell, 4 June 2003 by Friedman
They state that Washington was looking for a military junta to rule the country and keep it out of the hands of its people. Saddam offered the greatest hope for stability, so that the US could get its oil. The UN had no part in it.

In Al-Ahram Weekly, 26 December 2002, Halliday and von Sponeck commented on how the US and UK "systematically tried to prevent him from briefing the security council" about the "savagery of the sanctions".

The truth: I'm too lazy to read the New York Times, so I read Hegemony or Survival and give you the sources and footnotes.

 

[neviden]

Do you know what UNICEF does for the world? Just about nothing. UNICEF, and the UN in general is simply a gigantic beauracracy and nothing more. UNICEF, in general, does very little on its own accept manage relief programs carried out by other organizations. It's been said within the aid community that UNICEF is the best place to go, to do nothing, get a nice car, a nice place to live, and make a crap load of money.

That is kind of my point. Almost anybody is more trustworthy then the US government right now. When they start to talk about something the rest of the world looks at them funny and says: "Yeah, right.. ". We would ignore you, but you have $500 billion war machine.. ups, I meant Department of Defense.. and a strange habit of invading various third world countries every couple of years.

Oh, so... The Iragi intelligence removed all the evidence. I wonder why. They dismantled the plane. I wonder why. What on EARTH makes you think that this facility was used for wholesome reasons...

They did what any intelligence agency would do: Destroy any data no matter how trivial or important it was, before it fell into other (enemy) hands. I would be surprised if they didn’t do that, not only because it was their job, but mostly to cover their asses.

What they did with that plane is anyone’s guess. They didn’t train 9/11 folks in that, and there weren’t any other hijackings lately. US can “uncover terrorist plots and Iran and Syria involvements” all day long for all I care. They will have to have some serious proof until I take those claims for anything more than the propaganda.

US has made a mess with Iraq and its nobodies fault but theirs. US let neocons implement their stupid ideas, now the US could at least clean up their own mess. Not that they can actually do a lot of course. They will probably “declare victory”, go home, then wonder “Why do they hate us so much? Is it because they are envious of our freedom?”

 

[Merkinball]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like things went as they should have. I'm just really confused as to how people on this earth living in free societies can hold the opinion that stability is more favorable that human and civil rights. It really boggles my mind. You guys like to use the Ben Franklin quote, "he who would give up a little freedom for security, deserves neither freedom, nor security" as an argument against something petty like the patriot act. But then you turn around and say we should have left a horribly brutal dictator with ambitions a mile wide for the sake of stability. Of course a dictatorship was stable. Duh. At what cost though?

 

[Princeps]

I'm just really confused as to how people on this earth living in free societies can hold the opinion that stability is more favorable that human and civil rights. It really boggles my mind.

'

Ask the people today in White House and their immediate mentors... After all they were the ones that allowed Saddam to rule. "...whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" -- New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell, describing Washington's judgment as George Bush I authorized Saddam to crush the Shi'ite rebellion in 1991.

But then you turn around and say we should have left a horribly brutal dictator with ambitions a mile wide for the sake of stability. Of course a dictatorship was stable. Duh. At what cost though?

First of all, the sanctions made the people dependant on Saddam's stability... So first, when United States and UK imposes genocidal sanctions on Iraq, making them dependant on their brutal dictator, than US invades, preaching about vaunted democracy, while at the same time, brutally crushing grass-roots democratic process and labour organization and installing a brutal neoliberal dictator who tore the place to pieces economically... and you seriously claim that US was the benign side in all this?

Did you know that there were actually WMD material in Iraq? --- Yes, material which had been marked by the inspectors, who were dismantling them. After US invaded, the inspectors were dismissed and US "took over" ... in reality, the site was totally neglected. The inspectors continued to watch over the site through satelites and they found widespread looting. Whoever took these devices and material is not known but some trucks heading to east, were found to be radioactive. It is a supreme case of irony, that US said it would invade to prevent terrorist from acquiring WMD...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like things went as they should have. I'm just really confused as to how people on this earth living in free societies can hold the opinion that stability is more favorable that human and civil rights. It really boggles my mind. You guys like to use the Ben Franklin quote, "he who would give up a little freedom for security, deserves neither freedom, nor security" as an argument against something petty like the patriot act. But then you turn around and say we should have left a horribly brutal dictator with ambitions a mile wide for the sake of stability. Of course a dictatorship was stable. Duh. At what cost though?

Well, I figured that the OP meant the war in Iraq as the actual war in Iraq the way it is and was conducted. I do not support that war. I do not support the way the prelude nor the aftermath was handled.

I did support intervening in Iraq. Just not the way the Yahoos which were our respective leaders conducted it.

 

[Merkinball]

Ask the people today in White House and their immediate mentors... After all they were the ones that allowed Saddam to rule. "...whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" -- New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell, describing Washington's judgment as George Bush I authorized Saddam to crush the Shi'ite rebellion in 1991. - Princeps

Huh? Bush and the CIA INCITED the rebellion...ugh...

Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War

So first, when United States and UK imposes genocidal sanctions on Iraq

Ugh. UN imposed sanctions.

United Nations sanctions against Iraq were imposed by the United Nations in 1990 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and continued until the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Well, I figured that the OP meant the war in Iraq as the actual war in Iraq the way it is and was conducted. I do not support that war. I do not support the way the prelude nor the aftermath was handled.

I did support intervening in Iraq. Just not the way the Yahoos which were our respective leaders conducted it.

Just exactly how were you going to intervene in a country in Iraq without warfare again?

 

[JollyRoger]

It really boggles my mind. You guys like to use the Ben Franklin quote, "he who would give up a little freedom for security, deserves neither freedom, nor security" as an argument against something petty like the patriot act. But then you turn around and say we should have left a horribly brutal dictator with ambitions a mile wide for the sake of stability. Of course a dictatorship was stable. Duh. At what cost though?

So long as the dictator is a dictator of another country, let the Ben Franklins of that country handle it.

 

[Princeps]

Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.[citation needed]

Yes -- indeed, citation needed.

Ugh. UN imposed sanctions.

US imposed sanctions using its sway in the UN and those sanctions were enforced by the US and its "junior partner" UK.