Reflections on the Iraq War

[JollyRoger]

Damn, I thought Ecofarm was back.

 

[Cutlass]

"We should declare that he who is not with us is against us. We must secure Afghanistan."
—

British Ambassador John MacNeill, 1839, prior to Britain's first disastrous occupation of Afghanistan

 

[GhostWriter16]

"We should declare that he who is not with us is against us. We must secure Afghanistan."
—

British Ambassador John MacNeill, 1839, prior to Britain's first disastrous occupation of Afghanistan

Yeah, they forget that when Jesus said "Whoever is not for me is against me", he wasn't talking about mass murder

I was just thinking that myself. Very annoying.

I fixed it.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, they forget that when Jesus said "Whoever is not for me is against me", he wasn't talking about mass murder

I prefer the Vaclav Havel version:
"He who is not against us is for us."

 

[peter grimes]

When did I use my Christianity to justify any of that?

Abortion stuff, for starters.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I prefer the Vaclav Havel version:
"He who is not against us is for us."

IIRC that was in fact the correct quote. Noted.

Abortion stuff, for starters.

I don't usually. The reality is though, my philosophy is, you can do whatever the crap you want as long as you aren't violating the rights of any other person. Want to hire a prostitute? Sure, you should be allowed to do that. Want to own an AK-47? Ditto. Want to shoot heroin? Enjoy ruining your life, but you have the right to do that too. Want to abort a fetus in the womb? Well, some would say that there isn't a victim, but the reality is, since there is another person in the womb, that is something that should be enforced.

Anyone who says they don't want to enforce morality is BSing you. I want to enforce as little morality as possible. The minimum standard is, you can swing your fist, but you can't punch anyone else in the face. You also can't kill an unborn person, however much you might want to de-personify them in your mind.

 

[druidravi]

Could a resolution be arrived without an outright Iraqi invasion?. I remember just before the invasion, Saddam was very cooperative to UN weapon inspectors and took pains to stress they had no WMD. Would removing economic sanction and keeping military sanctions on and threatening outright war if Saddam committed any mass killings work?.

A war against Iraq to topple Saddam might have made sense during his genocidal campaign against Kurds or even during the Iraq Kuwait war. In 2003 period there was no urgent critical situation which required an invasion . It was the post 9/11 period and Bush used the uproar over it as an advantage to push his pet war .

In fact I thought Mynamar was a good candidate if there was a genuine aim to foster democracy in countries. They had a repressive Military junta and a capable opposition party with a leader with mass appeal(Aung Suu Kyi). But as it happened the military junta reformed on its own without requiring a forceful intervention .

Toppling Saddam had nothing to do with fostering democracy and more of acquiring an US base and a vassal state. That did not work out that well

 

[Cutlass]

Could a resolution be arrived without an outright Iraqi invasion?. I remember just before the invasion, Saddam was very cooperative to UN weapon inspectors and took pains to stress they had no WMD. Would removing economic sanction and keeping military sanctions on and threatening outright war if Saddam committed any mass killings work?.

There wasn't actually anything the US needed to "resolve".

 

[mrt144]

Well, he was largely the reason we were there in the first Gulf War, and I think he was determined to make us pay for tossing his ass out of Kuwait in some way or another eventually.

In other words, I think Iraq, the region and the world overall is a better place without him being in power.

Enemy you know vs. enemy you don't know. I'll take the enemy I know who is a paper tiger 100% of the time.

 

[MobBoss]

Enemy you know vs. enemy you don't know. I'll take the enemy I know who is a paper tiger 100% of the time.

I don't think 1 million plus dead due to the Iran/Iraq war, hundreds of thousands of his own people killed by his government, and the lives lost in Kuwait and the war to free Kuwait indicative of what a 'paper tiger' is.

Even after the first Gulf War Saddam rebuilt his military back relatively quickly. His miltary consisted of 375,000 Iraqi Army regulars (11 infantry divisions, 3 mech and 3 armored divisions), 50,000 elite republican guards and 650,000 reserves at the start of the Iraq War in 2003. He was a significant threat to the other nations in the region even after the First Gulf War, and previous proven fully ready and willing to use force to achieve his goals.

Definitely not a paper tiger.

 

[Tarquelne]

Definitely not a paper tiger.

Oh, sure: Regional destabilization was a possibility.

I think mrt144 was replying to your "he was determined to make us pay."

In the sense that he was likely seriously harm the US - like, as cost as many lives or as much money as our war has and raise the overall threat level - "paper tiger" looks quite good to me.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh, sure: Regional destabilization was a possibility.

I think mrt144 was replying to your "he was determined to make us pay."

In the sense that he was likely seriously harm the US - like, as cost as many lives or as much money as our war has - "paper tiger" looks quite good to me.

Well, fwiw, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda didnt have nearly the resources that Saddam had and they seriously harmed the US. Given that, I dont think it an unreasonable stretch to think Saddam could have as well....he certainly had more reason to.

 

[Tarquelne]

Well, fwiw, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda didnt have nearly the resources that Saddam had and they seriously harmed the US. Given that, I dont think it an unreasonable stretch to think Saddam could have as well....he certainly had more reason to.

You've gone from "determined to make us pay" to "had more reason to." And the comparison made is to a bunch of anti-US fanatics.

I grant that, like France, Saddam had more resources than AQ or the Taliban. I grant that he had a clear reason to want to stick us in the eye. I don't see, OTOH, that he was as unconcerned with his own position as AQ - he had more to lose, and was highly public. He wasn't a fanatic more concerned with our destruction than his prosperity. That'd factor against a significant attack. I don't grant that "clear reason to" translates to "probably would have." Especially not with all the grief we were already giving him.

So: Still paper tiger. There are plenty of people out there who wish us ill and have significant resources. We don't invade all their countries because there are almost always better ways to deal with them. Saddam, IMO, was no exception.

 

[Perfection]

Well, fwiw, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda didnt have nearly the resources that Saddam had and they seriously harmed the US. Given that, I dont think it an unreasonable stretch to think Saddam could have as well....he certainly had more reason to.

I don't think Saddam was just out to get the US/West in the way Al Qaeda was.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, fwiw, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda didnt have nearly the resources that Saddam had and they seriously harmed the US. Given that, I dont think it an unreasonable stretch to think Saddam could have as well....he certainly had more reason to.

To be fair, the Taliban didn't really care about America at any level greater than "We don't like you, you Great Satan of the Imperialist West" and their relations with Bin Laden were rather patchy. The Taliban was comprised of radical local Islamists frequently at odds with the conservative Pushtun tribes and in constant quarrels with tribal leaders, bandits, and the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the other hand was comprised mainly of violent International Islamists who-surprise surprise- didn't look favorably upon the Taliban's ethnic focus and provincial outlook.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think Saddam was just out to get the US/West in the way Al Qaeda was.

He was behind a plot to assassinate GHWB. He may not have been working operationally with AQ, but their goals werent that different where we were concerned.

To be fair, the Taliban didn't really care about America at any level greater than "We don't like you, you Great Satan of the Imperialist West" and their relations with Bin Laden were rather patchy. The Taliban was comprised of radical local Islamists frequently at odds with the conservative Pushtun tribes and in constant quarrels with tribal leaders, bandits, and the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the other hand was comprised mainly of violent International Islamists who-surprise surprise- didn't look favorably upon the Taliban's ethnic focus and provincial outlook.

Then why didnt they give us OBL when we demanded him after 9/11?

 

[Ajidica]

He was behind a plot to assassinate GHWB.

And we were behind plots to assassinate Saddam. Does assassination attempts somehow become 'bad' when done against American leaders?

 

[MobBoss]

You've gone from "determined to make us pay" to "had more reason to." And the comparison made is to a bunch of anti-US fanatics.

I grant that, like France, Saddam had more resources than AQ or the Taliban. I grant that he had a clear reason to want to stick us in the eye. I don't see, OTOH, that he was as unconcerned with his own position as AQ - he had more to lose, and was highly public. He wasn't a fanatic more concerned with our destruction than his prosperity. That'd factor against a significant attack. I don't grant that "clear reason to" translates to "probably would have." Especially not with all the grief we were already giving him.

So: Still paper tiger. There are plenty of people out there who wish us ill and have significant resources. We don't invade all their countries because there are almost always better ways to deal with them. Saddam, IMO, was no exception.

Again, a guy that has a well over 400k man army, and over 600k men in reserve along with tanks and modern fighter aircraft who had invaded two of his neighboring nations during his regime isnt a 'paper tiger' in any sense of the word. He was a major destabilizing factor in the region, a terror to his own populace, and the world is simply a better place now that he is gone.

And we were behind plots to assassinate Saddam. Does assassination attempts somehow become 'bad' when done against American leaders?

No, we were not. However, if you think you can make your case that we were, i'd be happy to look at your proof.

 

[Perfection]

He was behind a plot to assassinate GHWB. He may not have been working operationally with AQ, but their goals werent that different where we were concerned.

I wouldn't characterize an assassination plot GHWB a direct attack on the American people in the way some AQ have been.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Again, a guy that has a well over 400k man army, and over 600k men in reserve along with tanks and modern fighter aircraft who had invaded two of his neighboring nations during his regime isnt a 'paper tiger' in any sense of the word. He was a major destabilizing factor in the region, a terror to his own populace, and the world is simply a better place now that he is gone.

Which is somehow why Rumsfield was happy to normalise relations and work with Saddam, while Dick Cheney was happy to leave Saddam in power and President Ronald Reagan was happy to support Saddam. (Reagan did love freedom fighters)

Hell even the Australian government was happy to support Saddam in violation of UN sanctions.