Reflections on the Iraq War

[MobBoss]

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

Why not?

Sure its an attack on an individual, but he's also one of a very small group: former Presidents of the United States. A group which we presumably hold in very high esteem.

I'd consider it an attack on the USA if any of our former Presidents were targeted for assassination or any of our most important elected leaders. That's just something that will not be tolerated.

 

[Perfection]

It's an attack on the USA, yes, but not on the American People (i.e. "ordinary" Americans)

 

[Tarquelne]

...his regime isnt a 'paper tiger' in any sense of the word.

Not in the sense I already mentioned seemed to be operating in the discussion. That's why I brought it up. (Do you know what it even means to say "in any sense of the word."? Maybe you're confused. It's does not mean "In the meaning I've just adopted because the previous one has proved untenable.")

He was a major destabilizing factor in the region, a terror to his own populace

I'd quibble about "major", but yes: In *that* sense he wasn't a paper tiger. Yay.

Hmm... and you've repeated yourself without actually addressing the points I raised. That makes me disinclined to continue this argument after this post. You've presented not just low-hanging fruit, you've picked it up off the ground where it was rotting and tried to present it as fresh and crisp.

Assassination:
Here (again) we have justification for doing "something" about Saddam, but not at all necessarily a war.

For example:

On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the IIS in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush.

And with the assassination argument you've explicitly shifted to goals. Not methods, not degree of threat.

Saddam was a Bad Guy, he was a threat in the region, and given the chance to get us without being gotten he'd do it. Granted.

Does. Not. Justify. War. Too many cheaper - in both blood and gold - alternatives.

What you've presented are wonderful excuses for a war. If what you're doing is shopping around for a war of choice I can see adopting them as a reason to go after Iraq rather than, say, Pakistan.

But they don't legitimate the sort of war the American public was sold, or support a "just" war as the term is generally understood. There are arguments stating that the war didn't qualify under *any* of the usual criteria. I don't think it even came close to "last resort" and "proportionality."

 

[Cutlass]

See, the trick is that in the real world Saddam was a major stabilizing power in the region, and removing him made the whole area much less stable. Sure, he was scum. But he was scum who was the enemy of our enemies. His removal made our enemies much stronger and more able to act as they please.

For the US, there is no upside to his removal, unless some decades from now Iraq fundamentally changes from the road it is on currently. And that is what Bush and his apologists never understood.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think Bush and his apologists understood the instability - it would just create a permanent need for our bloated military.

 

[mrt144]

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.

We whipped his dumb ass in GW I, we whipped his ass in GW II. GTFO MobBoss. He was not a threat to the United States. Everything about you reeks of paranoid delusion on this.

 

[mrt144]

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 know which one to do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We whipped his dumb ass in GW I, we whipped his ass in GW II. GTFO MobBoss. He was not a threat to the United States. Everything about you reeks of paranoid delusion on this.

I would call MobBoss all kinds of nasty things but paranoid delusional doesn't really fit. Save that label for the tin hatters and the flourinated water mindcontrol freaks or it loses all it's value as a label. It also makes your <lack of> argument look silly as well.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why not?

Sure its an attack on an individual, but he's also one of a very small group: former Presidents of the United States. A group which we presumably hold in very high esteem.

I'd consider it an attack on the USA if any of our former Presidents were targeted for assassination or any of our most important elected leaders. That's just something that will not be tolerated.

They're not only just ordinary citizens now, but they are also all murderers who got off easy.

I don't hold them in high esteem. Sadly, most people do.

I believe we should turn George W. over to Europe. As in: "Here, take him and do whatever the crap you want."

 

[mrt144]

I would call MobBoss all kinds of nasty things but paranoid delusional doesn't really fit. Save that label for the tin hatters and the flourinated water mindcontrol freaks or it loses all it's value as a label. It also makes your <lack of> argument look silly as well.

My only argument is that Saddam wasn't a threat that justified invasion and deposition. That we rolled him hard twice is all the evidence you need. That he never actually harmed anyone outside of the theater of war is another.

 

[JollyRoger]

I believe we should turn George W. over to Europe. As in: "Here, take him and do whatever the crap you want."

I'm for detaining him in Gitmo until the war on terror is over.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do whatever the crap we want?

Send him back.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think Bush and his apologists understood the instability - it would just create a permanent need for our bloated military.

Yeah, I think this is probably true. For once, you're right

I'm for detaining him in Gitmo until the war on terror is over.

So am I. In the interest of fairness, Obama deserves that as well for not closing the doggone prison down....

Do whatever the crap we want?

Send him back.

I thought some countries in Europe had a warrant for his arrest. Honestly, I'd be more than happy to see him locked in a prison cell right here in America, but we won't do it because we worship the Commander in Chief and the military.

Take him, please. You don't have to give him a trial, considering how many people he denied that to without cause, not to mention his public admission of guilt

 

[Old Hippy]

My main reflection of the Iraq war I, is what would have happened if US troops were not left stationed in Saudi Arabia but only in Kuwait, would the Islamic fundamentalists have attacked the world trade centre because the US had troops stationed in the the holy lands...

 

[MobBoss]

It's an attack on the USA, yes, but not on the American People (i.e. "ordinary" Americans)

So, when our Ambassador got killed in Libya, that was merely an attack on an individual and not an attack on the 'American People' (tm pending)?

I see. But your opinion notwithstanding, let me quote President Clinton on it:

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

I guess good ol' Bill disagrees with you on it.

See, the trick is that in the real world Saddam was a major stabilizing power in the region, and removing him made the whole area much less stable. Sure, he was scum. But he was scum who was the enemy of our enemies.

Until he became our enemy.

His removal made our enemies much stronger and more able to act as they please.

It also removed him being a threat to our even closer friends in the region.

For the US, there is no upside to his removal....

Of course there is upside to be realized. We no longer have a crazy bloodthirsty loon in power in a very important part of the world.

We whipped his dumb ass in GW I, we whipped his ass in GW II. GTFO MobBoss. He was not a threat to the United States. Everything about you reeks of paranoid delusion on this.

Why we whupped em, and whupped em, and he learnt his lessen didnt he?

But i'm glad you endorse allowing a guy to stay in power that used chemical weapons on his own people, killing 5000 and harming 10,000 more, since in your opinion 'he was not a threat...'.

You do realize that Saddam sold himself to the rest of the Arab world as the winner of the first Gulf war simply on the basis that we didnt kill him? That he took on the 'Great Satan' and lived? That he in fact gained quite a bit of popularity from that claim?

But i'm not a paranoid. The USA was hardly the only power to think Iraq a threat and that it would take force to make Iraq comply with continued UN sanctions, and neither did we go in alone, although we were the predominate military force present.

My only argument is that Saddam wasn't a threat that justified invasion and deposition. That we rolled him hard twice is all the evidence you need. That he never actually harmed anyone outside of the theater of war is another.

Was he at war with the Kurds when he gassed them? What about the Scud missiles he fired into Israel and Saudi Arabia?

 

[GhostWriter16]

But i'm glad you endorse allowing a guy to stay in power that used chemical weapons on his own people, killing 5000 and harming 10,000 more, since in your opinion 'he was not a threat...'.

Yes, he killed his own people. There's a large leap between that and him being a threat to us.

 

[Perfection]

So, when our Ambassador got killed in Libya, that was merely an attack on an individual and not an attack on the 'American People' (tm pending)?

I see. But your opinion notwithstanding, let me quote President Clinton on it:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

I guess good ol' Bill disagrees with you on it.

Terminology aside, the fact is that this plot wasn't for the wholesale slaughter of American civilians. That's the main point I'm making.

 

[MobBoss]

Terminology aside, the fact is that this plot wasn't for the wholesale slaughter of American civilians. That's the main point I'm making.

It doesn't have to be. That's the point that counters yours. We shouldnt tolerate anyone killing our people, be it only 1 in number or thousands.

 

[JollyRoger]

Should Iraq have tolerated us killing their people, be it only 1 in number or thousands?

 

[Perfection]

It doesn't have to be. That's the point that counters yours. We shouldnt tolerate anyone killing our people, be it only 1 in number or thousands.

It's not about tolerance of killing of people, it's about what sort of actions demand the destruction of a regime. Not invading Iraq is not the same as tolerating Saddam's behavior.