Iraq War

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

triplemultiplex
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:48 pm

LA_KING_91 wrote:I think we are going to "puss" out like Vietnam were the Generals "sucked" the dick of the Vietcong and bailed out. The same thing is going to happend if sh*t aint going to fix it. Anyone counter/agree with this go right ahead and continue this debate now.


We'll pull out of Iraq a few years after it's determined the potential good resulting from our continued presence is outweighed by the ongoing negative impacts of that continued presence.

I say years because the leaders won't want to cop to it at first, just like how the White House & Pentagon determined Vietnam was unwinnable in 1972, yet kept the war going.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:56 pm

SuperMaids wrote:Wow, I thought I everything there was to know about the situation in Iraq until I read this thread.
Now I realise oil was a major factor in determining weather to go to action over Iraq, but so many other, stronger factors made Iraq the oil rich nation of choice for the coalition to invade; helping to create that veil of fear which holds American society in place, preventing any notable home policy advances towards socialism: the relitive ease of the invasion compared to an invasion of simmilarly oil rich countries like Russia and Turkmenistan: the Bush family's old score to settle with Sadam: the ease in which Sadam can be deamonised (check SP:BLU) due to his atrocities, helping to alieviate domestic aversion to war in the same way the Hollocaust did with Germany after the war.
It really was a complex issue with no single cause. Other than Oil


Something like that (I'm assuming that you aren't one of the out of touch people who think this administration has gone through all this trouble for oil profits they couldn't even cash in on). I wish everyone would take notice that it wasn't just any one given issue that put us in Iraq. Seems like everyone else says "Oh, but Al-Qaeda was in other countries!" or "This dictator is more brutal!" Really it's a mix of several factors which were laid out in the IWR that pushed us into Iraq.

KTS wrote:I need only refer back to history to refute this. As insane as you claim Saddam is, think back to the period of the first Gulf War when Saddam threatened to launch WMDs on our ally Israel. We told him, "You launch on Israel, we launch on you." Saddam decided he wanted to keep his ass and his arteries, and he got sane real quickly.


You obviously didn't read what HSXL wrote. He pointed out that Saddam clearly had the potential to eliminate his signature on any given WMD attack, and by doing that we wouldn't know if we should retaliate on NK on a country that harbors Al-Qaeda, or whatever terror group could've pulled off the attack.

No doubt that MAD had stopped conflict at one point, our point is that Saddam could easily send in assassins like he did in George Bush Sr.'s time and then make the attack seem as if it had came from Al-Qaeda. That brings up another problem with nukes or any kind of WMD in Saddam's possession. He easily could sell them off to another foreign country or terror group (maybe Al-Qaeda but not likely) for profit and let the new possessor of the device have their way with it.

As dictator of Iraq, his main concern was staying in power, and even he knew well enough that he couldn't do that if he were DEAD. He was too self-absorbed to risk his ass on something foolish like that.


So then why didn't he leave Iraq when given the chance? If he wasn't crazy then don't you think he would've valued his life more then his power like you say he did?

Saddam wanted his neighbors to believe he had WMDs, while at the same time trying to convince the UN that he had none.


Now that didn't turn out well when it came to getting the straight truth on if he had them or not.

You know, your own words thoroughly refute that missile defense system argument that you both were making before. No nation is going to be stupid enough to launch an ICBM on us. Those come with a return address that practically guarantee annihilation. A small device smuggled in a cargo ship, or even a conventional explosive smuggled into a chemical or nuclear plant, would kill just as many people, and are far more likely than a missile launch.


I'm assuming the "snip" at the end of HSXL's quote was added to point out how you intend to ignore the rest of what he said. You're now admitting that if Saddam wanted to, he could eliminate the paper trail leading to him, which is what HSXL had already said before.

I was primarily interested in this sentence:
True, Saddam is a cruel despot, but plenty of other leaders have bloody hands and we aren’t thinking about going after them.

You would say that the presence of other murderous dictators around the world, many of whom were far worse than Saddam, is irrelevant to the discussion.


Could you give light to these other dictators? And for what I believe may be the third or fourth time, it wasn't just one issue that put us in this war. It wasn't just WMDs, it wasn't just the fact that he was a brutal dictator, it wasn't just that Al-Qaeda was trying to expand into Iraq prior to the war and Saddam sat back and did nothing, it wasn't just the various UN resolution violations that he agreed to after the gulf but in many cases decided to violate them, it wasn't just the fact that he violated cease fire by firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, it wasn't just the fact that Saddam had made an assassination's attempt on a prior president, it wasn't just the fact that during the Clinton administration, it was agreed that Saddam's regime should be overthrown and a democratic replacement should be in order.

It was ALL of these things combined that led up to a country that needed to be dealt with. Let me ask you this, if there are other countries that we should be at war with instead, then point out which ones fit these same conditions in 2003. Find just one, and I'll take back some of what I said. :)

See above. Same double standard.


Refer back to your own post in which you said countries could eliminate their signature from an attack.

I don't think Bush even expected that someone like Saddam would take such an ultimatum seriously. Why would he?


You already explained why:

He was too self-absorbed to risk his ass on something foolish like that.


Like you said, he apparently did care for his life, so why risk it with another war with the US?

Saddam's regime had already survived one Gulf War and years worth of sanctions, and he still believed he had the people of Iraq behind him all the way.


This is kind of one of the reasons why he was pretty irrational in his thinking. Why would he have the people of Iraq behind him if he spent much of his time oppressing him?

They based it on his motivations for entering into those conflicts, which were different from Hitler's, and by comparing his regime to those of neighboring countries. Also, you can hardly make the argument that the number of people Saddam killed is comparable to Hitler.


We're well aware of that. Notice how at the end of what you quoted from HSXL has to do with the case I made. If he was in no way comparable to Hitler whatsoever, then refute the case I will now repost yet again:

From that bigass post I wrote:But when it comes to drawing parallels between Iraq and WWII:

a. consider that in both cases you have a dictator who oppresses and kills a certain group, and...

b. Gives the entire world crap, causing many nations to rise against him, and...

c. much of the world thinks that it may become a war that is lost, plus...

d. they both follow an extremist ideology which they wish were imposed upon the entire world. Also...

e. Saddam actually admitted that he wanted to model his Ba'ath party after Hitler's Nazi regime, simply because he liked the way Hitler used his methods to control his own country.

f. in both cases the enemy which we are fighting against has support from other countries, so...

g. taking them out with force is the only way to go. You can't negotiate these people to suddenly become peaceful or agreeable. Not in anyway at all. Plus...

h. Amnesty is the solution after the violence has died down.

With all this in mind, violence sometimes is the answer, there is some comparison between WWII and Iraq, and no way in hell could someone even compare the president to Hitler. Years from now people will look back at that with some pretty big amusement, much like how hippies are looked at today. Here's a few references to what I just listed above:


>http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw30husseinhitler.htm


>http://www.theamericancause.org/patissaddamanother.htm


>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845263/posts

And here’s one that not only explains clearly how ridiculous it is to believe such a thing, but also helps to give a case for WMD’s:


>http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000100.html


Weren't the Taliban also responsible for numerous conflicts, massacres, and ethnic cleansing?


Check the above standards for Saddam. Now did the Taliban fits those?

Yeah, and this is no different from how Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein (and called him an infidel) because Iraq was run as a secular state, as opposed to a theocracy run by fundamentalist Islamic clerics. So by that logic, you could say that technically bin Laden had a vested interest of a similar kind in Iraq as well, long before the invasion had begun. He wanted all nations in the region to be run that way, because they'd be easier for his organization to deal with. It wasn't until 2005 that Zarqawi actually begun drawing up plans to establish Al-Qaeda operations in war-torn Iraq. We gave him the opportunity; he wasn't on his way to having his way with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.


Okay KTS, I have a little job for you. Go up to my post on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, check the links, and then explain to me why they don't prove Zarqawi was trying to expand to Iraq prior to the invasion.

Speaking of ignoring links that are right in front of your face...


*checks back at what I just wrote

I'm always thinking the same thing when someone says Al-Qaeda never took interest in Iraq until after the Iraq invasion, even when I post several links on that issue. :lol:

US intel reported that Al-Qaeda had restored its operating capacity to a level like what it had prior to 9/11, using its safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, while the US has been focused primarily on Iraq. It regrouped in spite of 6 years worth of war, bombing, and other counter-terrorism efforts.


So explain why nothing has happened recently except a group of people who load up gas containers in a car, and call it a bomb.

Again KTS, me and HSXL are looking at results.

You know, as much as you two have claimed that the Iraq war is making us so much safer, you are usually the first to use the ongoing threat of terrorism as justification for everything.


Well duh, if they take out 3,000 lives in a single hour while wiping out some of the most important buildings in the world then of course it should be taken seriously. And what do you know? Nothing major has happen since.

You missed the point. They're only our allies as long as it's convenient for them, just like how Saddam used to be an ally as long as it was convenient for him.


Then I guess it won't be long before insurgents continue to side with us.

Again, there goes the double standard.


Again there goes the ignoring of the many other factors that led up to the Iraq war.

Following the first Gulf War, the US had repeatedly urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, yet did nothing to help the uprisings. The result was nothing short of a massacre as the rebellions were brutally put down. Why did the US not step in right then and there?


To answer your question, let's look at what you've been saying before. You mention time and time again that there were apparently all kinds of other countries that have the same problem, so what made Iraq any different. Now when the conditions pointed out in the IWR showed up, then changed everything so we did step in.

3MX wrote:But that still doesn't answer the question, "Why was the Administration 'surprised' by the insurgency when one of the chief architects of America's Iraq policy recognized the numerous pitfalls of invading Iraq?"


After you read this response I want you to watch the video again in it's entirety to know what I mean.

At no point did Cheney say the word "insurgency." His entire focus was on why we didn't march on to Iraq during the Gulf war; not at all is this the same thing as what we had in 2003.

Along with that we should all take note to the fact that in 1994, no talks had started yet on a democratic replacement in Iraq. As I said above in this post, during the Clinton administration, everyone had begun to agree that since Saddam was no longer willing to agree with the conditions he agreed with when he surrendered in '91, that a democratic replacement was likely to be a better choice.

Cheney did have a clear idea of some of the consequences of invading Iraq during the Gulf war, but notice that he never said insurgency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

Is this that selective amnesia that seems to run rampant in the Bush White House?


See above point. You can't forget something you never knew.

This war was executed by people who obvioiusly ignored thier past concerns about invading Iraq and went along with that "transformation" business Rumsfeld was pushing and thus stepping America into a giant bear trap.


They didn't ignore past concerns about invading Iraq at all, they knew ahead of time to be prepared for what they already knew could be a problem. Otherwise they wouldn't be engaged in talks with these countries as they have been:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006 ... mmit_x.htm

When you invade Iraq that's not "ignoring" past concerns at all, it looking at the case for war and the consequences and deciding the case for war was higher.

Oh and I always get a kick out of the "Coalition of the Willing". The US, the UK and a bunch of little sh*t countries whose actual contribution amounts to a boy scout troop and a surplus Jeep. Where are the Arab countries? Where are the second-tier superpowers? Where are the other permanent members of the UN Security Council? I'm pretty sure Bush cashed in the "we owe you one" from Kuwait so we could actually have a place to start from.


Much if not all of the issue of how many allies where willing to help and to what degree is in the hands of those countries, not something you can cite against the prez.

I believe part of why we didn't as many allies on board as planned was due to the issue I cited above. This administration apparently wanted to take a little more time to plan and get allies on board but that never happened.

One Arab ally would've been worth 12 European allies.


Would the ISF count as a country willing to help?



Right now I'm starting to wonder. We've explained why oil profits just weren't the main motivation with the war at all, we explained why the case for WMD's was pretty significant, we explained why the Valerie Plame (aka "worse than watergate") lawsuit was frivolous, we explained why Al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to 2003 and had the intention of expanding there especially since Saddam didn't seem to care, we pointed out how many people have been mass-murdered by his regime and how they would've continued for as long as he was in power, we refuted the idea that MAD would've save us if Saddam had WMDs (and even KTS agrees that there are many ways of starting a nuclear attack aside from telling the whole world it was them), the list goes on.

Now what could possibly be the next issue pinned on this administration?

KTS wrote:Yeah, Saudi Arabia is our ally all right, because they're certainly on the same page with us when it comes to human rights. As well as what Al-Qaeda is allowed to get away with within our respective borders.


Wow, now we're bringing up what goes on in another country the president doesn't even have control over? Wow.

>http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/sau-summary-eng (Biased site, oh no!)


I disagree. Amnesty International has been an excellent source of information especially on the Mass Murders in Iraq. Otherwise, I wouldn't cite a link that uses them as a reference.

^Yes I made that up.


Big surprise there. :roll:

Well, it seems we have a new crowd of people with opinions.

LA_KING_91 wrote:Iraq is going to be the next Vietnam. Lets see here we f*cked up big time thinking this war would be "easy". Uh, let see the rest of the world (50%) hates our f*cking ass. Uh, Iraq is full of terriosts willing to blow their ass up. The only "stable" area is just Kurdistan. I think this is going to be like Vietnam because of good troop lvl, enough support(national/political/international), etc. The US should not have lowered the f*cking troop lvl after Bush f*cked up and said "Mission Accomplished". The dumb assh*le f*cked the whole countries of USA/IRAQ up by saying that now. Now we got guys going in to Iraq, and comming out in body bags. If we had more troops (let say 2 million troops) we could have better control and finish this damm occupation. I bet we are going to occupy the country longer than the occupation of Japan(1945-1952) , and Germany. I bet you are going to hear about Iraq being occupied when you are old , when your children are your age, their children. This wouldnt have happend if we had more ground troops here. Also I think within 5 years of typing this thread Congressional(NATIONAL) funding of the war in the Middle East theater is going to stop. I think we are going to "puss" out like Vietnam were the Generals "sucked" the dick of the Vietcong and bailed out. The same thing is going to happend if sh*t aint going to fix it. Anyone counter/agree with this go right ahead and continue this debate now.


If you really feel the need, take your ranting somewhere else. Really Iraq can be compared to almost any war. I like to think of it as a reincarnated WWII that has been mixed with the first Gulf, but also has some elements of Vietnam here and there.

LA KING, if you're going to post here, try to keep on topic. We're in the middle of a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with Vietnam.

hoopla1403 wrote:I agree, and you guys seem to have sown this up,

but If I could clarify, Iraq was not ONLY about oil,

Only the dolts at the Pentagon, Whitehall, and tomorows historians will be able to tell us, and in fact the former two probably dont know why either...


'oh what a web we weave when we practice to deceive'[/b][/i]


Same here hoopla. The rest of us are already aware of the rationale for the war. Just to introduce you guys to this thread let me show you guys what we know so far.

Now let's make that list again but this time with links. What do we know so far?

1. The Valerie Plame case is not a case that can be used to discredit the CiC. This is mainly due to the fact that she was never under cover to begin with, and nearly everyone in Africa had the choice of finding out what she was there for.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443757/posts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... overt.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... shtml?s=br

2. He, nor Cheney, profited from the war. (this is mainly due to the fact that Cheney only had blind trust funds, and that's it)

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/a ... toryid=173

If they really did want in on profits they would've let Saddam set the fields ablaze to increase the value of... oh that's right, they didn't have anything.

But hey, at least Michael Moore profited at one point:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/004231.html

3. Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion and Saddam was sympathetic, even doing Zarqawi favors every now and then.

The very first sign of involvement can be summed up in this link:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=139

As for the rest of the evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... d_al-Qaeda

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... omFont=YES

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArti ... eeast&col=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 730253.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek

http://www.avot.org/publications/pubid. ... detail.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4yqqnr.asp

Let all this sink in for a moment, wasn't Saddam very intolerant towards anyone who threatened his power, even to the slightest degree?

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/ ... lsadr.html

Apparently so. So when you let Zarqawi roam the country without repercussions, it no longer makes sense to say that Saddam never cut Al-Qaeda slack.

But there's even more proof that he was a threat to his power:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/ar ... veId=14984

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1513392006

Looks like Zarqawi wanted to take Saddam's place in the war against Shiites. But there's more:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3841.shtml

Looks like Zarqawi really was in a position of power after all. Otherwise no one would fight to take his place.

4. There was sufficient evidence to indicate that Saddam had wmds, even though we know today that he had none. And further inspections would be pointless if he was non-compliant. Saddam also violated many jurisdictions made by the UN.

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/pe ... 1104a.html

I've posted the above transcript several times now. It points out how Saddam, even after agreeing to comply with the UN after the '91 surrender is threatening to shoot down U-2 spy planes (they're not fighters or bombers) that are flying over his country, and also trying to dictate whether or not US inspectors can be part of the US team.

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm

This link above indicates various facts, like how nearly a dozen countries believed Saddam had wmds, Saddam's deceit towards inspectors, the violation of this "no wmd" rule in 1995, the large quantities of material "not required" by the UN was left uncalled for, the fact that Clinton had Iraq bombed in 1998 yet no one questioned whether or not Saddam had wmds at that time...Well see the whole list for yourself.

http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commen ... c-wmds.htm

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archiv ... ad_wmd.php

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRepor ... 1004a.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=49221

The above links expand even more on why most of the people in the senate and in this administration believed there were wmds in Iraq, and felt that there was sufficient reason to declare war with Saddam. And let's not forget what many top democrats were saying before the invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVa ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBc ... ed&search=

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005456.php

I really got a kick out of this quote 3MX:

3MX wrote:Is this that selective amnesia that seems to run rampant in the Bush White House?


*checks above links

Is this that selective amnesia that causes democrats to have this mentality of trying to rewrite the history of how we got in Iraq?

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/14/aziz111498.html

http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/po ... 18043.html

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraq_sanctions-pr.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1592.cfm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 19,00.html

Now these links summarize a little more evidence for why it was believed there were wmds in the country, but also point out the non-compliance put forth by Saddam, and why that made further inspections and diplomacy worthless.

And here's a little something on one of the "sources" that mislead us prior to the '03 invasion.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... ne-sidebar

So do we all see now just where this whole Iraq WMD thing came from?

5. Mass Murder and brutal oppression was a major part of life under Saddam's rule, and not too many countries came close to what he did, especially in 2003. Had we not taken him out, they could've continued indefinitely.

By now we've already debated back and forth on the whole mass murder issue. Roughly a quarter of a million people were killed in Iraq, often for the most dismal of reasons.

But more importantly, a point must be made for this issue in particular for it to have merit. Where these killings going to continue, and if they were, for how long?

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/

As we can see from history, most if not all genocides end in one of two ways. Either the killing stops due to the fact that the group being wiped out is finally wiped out, or someone steps in to intervene (WWII).

Now considering that the past of Saddam's regime and the most recent present of it consisted of killing anyone whom he may have thought was not entirely on his side, it becomes obvious that he would've continued what he was doing since nothing really changed much until we invaded.

But there is one more critical factor which I've already reposted several times now so I'll just take the links and that's it.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays ... hitler.htm

http://www.theamericancause.org/patissaddamanother.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845263/posts

As we can see above, Saddam admitted several times that he wanted to model his Baath party after the Nazi regime. He liked the way it controlled it's own people and he wanted that kind of power and control in his own hands. So sure enough, torture within his own country, mass murders, and even killing of people who posed no threat at all to him were occurring.

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/ ... lsadr.html

So let's take the past trend of killings and project it forward. We know he killed 200,000 to 300,000 people during his regime, so let's give a conservative estimate and take half the former. 100,000 is a good number to work with because we don't know if the same past conditions that made Saddam do what he did would be the same or occur again, so let's say we just let Saddam remain in power for a decade longer. At least, at the very possible lowest number available he would've killed 60,000 people. This number would've continued every decade the Baath regime was in power.

So in conclusion, this was a war that did save lives, here's more to back it up:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities ... ticle=3889

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003 ... addam.html

6. The war is NOT "illegal" as some pacifist progressives may say.

Often when you talk to the handful or so vets that ran off from the military some of their reasons for quitting, one reason they may cite is the idea that the war is "illegal."

This comes from the idea that the president does not have the authority to declare war on a country, that he must wait for prior approval from congress. But this over looks two main factors on this administration's declaration of war.

http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandecl ... Guide.html

As we can see in the above link, the Commander-in-Chief can deploy troops to a country when a state of war is recognized.

But the other problem lies in the fact that it really doesn't matter if congress where to take a day of their sweet time to approve it, it's still the same war.

1st Scenario
President and senate approve of war. War is declared. Troops free Iraq from Saddam. Weapons are not found. Insurgency erupts. Process of rebuilding nation and giving it a government of the people continues.

2nd Scenario
President and senate approve of war. Congress gives the approval. War is declared. Troops free Iraq from Saddam. Weapons are not found. Insurgency erupts. Process of rebuilding nation and giving it a government of the people continues.

As we can see from above, would things really be any different if we took our god given time to have congress say "Yes Mr. President, go to war!" Any different at all? No of course not. So why people go over the "Iraq War-Illegal" crap is beyond me.



So do we all get it now as to why we went to war with Iraq? Do you see why the President can necessarily be held accountable for all that goes wrong? Here's just a couple more links as well.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/sto ... 12,00.html

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

And yes KTS, I DO read all the links I post. Do you? 8)

At this point can we move on from the rationale to the actual handling of the war itself? Eventually within the next month or two, I sure would like to move on to current events. We've spent all our time focusing on either why we went to war or on a few occasions, the troop surge.

I really want to move on to that time frame between the invasion and now, you know when we found Saddam, took out Zarqawi, etc. I can't say I know much of this time period but HSXL probably does, and I would like an incentive for researching this time period.

I've learned more about my side of the issue in the time I've been on this thread then in the years that preceded. I'll always remember this, that's for sure. :)
FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:44 pm

Notice: I've made a name change for this thread so it's more relevant to the discussion. We've spent all our time discussing the Iraq war in general but very little to do with the idea that oil was the main incentive. This has been done so incoming posters have a better idea of what the thread is about.
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:52 pm

Donut wrote:You obviously didn't read what HSXL wrote. He pointed out that Saddam clearly had the potential to eliminate his signature on any given WMD attack, and by doing that we wouldn't know if we should retaliate on NK on a country that harbors Al-Qaeda, or whatever terror group could've pulled off the attack.

No doubt that MAD had stopped conflict at one point, our point is that Saddam could easily send in assassins like he did in George Bush Sr.'s time and then make the attack seem as if it had came from Al-Qaeda. That brings up another problem with nukes or any kind of WMD in Saddam's possession. He easily could sell them off to another foreign country or terror group (maybe Al-Qaeda but not likely) for profit and let the new possessor of the device have their way with it.

I'm assuming the "snip" at the end of HSXL's quote was added to point out how you intend to ignore the rest of what he said. You're now admitting that if Saddam wanted to, he could eliminate the paper trail leading to him, which is what HSXL had already said before.

What Saddam could hypothetically have done is not the same as what there was proof that he actually did. The WMDs the US went to war for were not there, any terrorist organization could have gotten the materials more easily from elsewhere, and any of the other nations that hate the US could easily do the same thing you guys are suggesting. You're not providing proof, this is just a bunch of fear and paranoia.
Could you give light to these other dictators? And for what I believe may be the third or fourth time, it wasn't just one issue that put us in this war. It wasn't just WMDs, it wasn't just the fact that he was a brutal dictator, it wasn't just that Al-Qaeda was trying to expand into Iraq prior to the war and Saddam sat back and did nothing, it wasn't just the various UN resolution violations that he agreed to after the gulf but in many cases decided to violate them, it wasn't just the fact that he violated cease fire by firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, it wasn't just the fact that Saddam had made an assassination's attempt on a prior president, it wasn't just the fact that during the Clinton administration, it was agreed that Saddam's regime should be overthrown and a democratic replacement should be in order.

It was ALL of these things combined that led up to a country that needed to be dealt with. Let me ask you this, if there are other countries that we should be at war with instead, then point out which ones fit these same conditions in 2003. Find just one, and I'll take back some of what I said.

I posted a list of dictators from around the world, in case you didn't notice. Other nations have possessed or pursued WMDs, defied the UN, and have actually harbored Al-Qaeda. And speaking of Clinton, don't forget what the Republicans (many of whom unflinchingly support the Iraq war) said when he sent troops into Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing at the hands of a brutal dictator. As for the no-fly zones and the assassination attempt, those are the only ones specific to Iraq, and both would make this war more about settling an old score than about stopping a genocide. Besides, if Al-Qaeda's plan to fly the fourth plane into the White House doesn't count as an assassination attempt, I don't know what is. I mentioned Saudi Arabia before, as they fit many of the factors, but they're supposed to be our allies.

Also, I wonder if you're truly aware of the fact that none of these factors have much to do with the real reasons why Iraq was chosen over other countries. Bush himself mentioned Iran and North Korea along with Iraq as high priorities, and this was prior to the Iraq invasion.
Like you said, he apparently did care for his life, so why risk it with another war with the US?

You're comparing being nuked in retaliation to sitting out a bunch of conventional bombings.
This is kind of one of the reasons why he was pretty irrational in his thinking. Why would he have the people of Iraq behind him if he spent much of his time oppressing him?

Saddam didn't act too much differently from other Middle Eastern leaders. Look into the reasons why he did what he did. His motivation was not insanity.
If he was in no way comparable to Hitler whatsoever, then refute the case I will now repost yet again:

We're all aware of the fact that he said Hitler was his idol, yes. However you are still trivializing WWII and the Holocaust if you think that a run-of-the-mill dictator who had his balls in a vicegrip is the same as Hitler.
But when it comes to drawing parallels between Iraq and WWII:
a. consider that in both cases you have a dictator who oppresses and kills a certain group, and...
b. Gives the entire world crap, causing many nations to rise against him, and...
c. much of the world thinks that it may become a war that is lost, plus...
d. they both follow an extremist ideology which they wish were imposed upon the entire world. Also...
e. Saddam actually admitted that he wanted to model his Ba'ath party after Hitler's Nazi regime, simply because he liked the way Hitler used his methods to control his own country.
f. in both cases the enemy which we are fighting against has support from other countries, so...
g. taking them out with force is the only way to go. You can't negotiate these people to suddenly become peaceful or agreeable. Not in anyway at all. Plus...
h. Amnesty is the solution after the violence has died down.

a. Saddam brutally put down uprisings by all 3 groups, not just one. Yes it's still murder, but it's not quite analogous, especially when you consider that their motivations were different.
b. Saddam never achieved the level of conquest that Hitler did. He tried to annex Kuwait, but that didn't last long, and he even fearfully responded that he would leave Kuwait when we told him to get out.
c. There's a difference between invading because you choose to and fighting back because you have no choice.
d. Not quite true. Ba'athism was a form of secular socialism, and socialism is the diametric opposite of fascism, which is what Nazism was. It wasn't Saddam's extremist ideology that motivated him. Had you been talking about Al-Qaeda though, you would have been 100% correct.
e. Right, but see above.
f. For different reasons. The nations sympathetic to Iraq when the US invaded did not want to see more Arabs needlessly killed, and resented US occupation of the Middle East in the first place. The leaders allied with Nazi Germany actually shared Hitler's megalomaniacal convictions.
g. Black and white fallacy. It's not just negotiations vs. shooting-war. Besides, why couldn't the US go about removing Saddam the way it did with Milosevic? There's certainly more than one way to handle a military operation.
h. There wasn't much violence going on immediately prior to the 2003 invasion, you know. Also I don't see how it's mutually exclusive.
Check the above standards for Saddam. Now did the Taliban fits those?

So you're saying you DON'T support the war in Afghanistan? Hypocrite. :roll:
Okay KTS, I have a little job for you. Go up to my post on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, check the links, and then explain to me why they don't prove Zarqawi was trying to expand to Iraq prior to the invasion.

I believe I pointed out that Osama bin Laden wanted the same thing, just as he wanted for every other country in the Middle East. Yes he proposed working together, over and over, but it never actually got anywhere, since he and Saddam could never quite set aside their differences in order to unite against the Great Satan of the United States. Al-Qaeda was no more involved than the US was at one time. It wasn't until Saddam was gone, and the police state he ran went with him, that Al-Qaeda was free to expand into Iraq.

Besides, I think you were only trying to refute the empirical detail that Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq, so you're beating a dead horse. I think everyone knows about Osama's meetings with Saddam and Al-Qaeda's interest in Iraq.
So explain why nothing has happened recently except a group of people who load up gas containers in a car, and call it a bomb.

Again KTS, me and HSXL are looking at results.

Suuuuuure you are. :roll:

What, is it going to take something really bad to happen to convince you that there's a problem? That's the way it was for Bush. The outgoing Clinton administration repeatedly warned him that terrorism would be the greatest threat they would face - that it would end up occupying all their time. But it wasn't until 9/11 happened that Bush decided to actually take serious action against Al-Qaeda. Clinton repeatedly pushed for more anti-terrorism measures, but it was the Republicans who blocked him. Clinton stopped many terrorist plots, some of which would have been on the scale of 9/11, but that doesn't mean that Al-Qaeda was not still a threat just because the plots did not succeed.
Well duh, if they take out 3,000 lives in a single hour while wiping out some of the most important buildings in the world then of course it should be taken seriously.

I thought you admitted that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who actually did harbor the organization that perpetrated the attacks? Like the Taliban? If you're going to say that we're luring them in so we can fight them over there, why could this not be done with Afghanistan?
Now when the conditions pointed out in the IWR showed up, then changed everything so we did step in.

Hardly. Those conditions had been present for years prior to that.

~~~~~~~~

What I find funny is how some people say that the Iraq war is being fought for the sake of spreading democracy. Yet when it comes to the issue of withdrawl, we shouldn't listen to the American public, because obviously they're just deluded and don't know what's going on in there. And we shouldn't listen to the majority of Iraqi people, because they're against the war anyway, and they have no idea what's best for their country. So apparently in a democracy, you just follow the leader, because the leader is always right. :P

I probably don't have to point out that, anywhere you look in the world, a democratic system of government has rarely if ever been imposed by force. Democracy always starts from within when the people themselves choose to adopt it. If the US truly has something good, there's no need to "spread" it, because people will steal it anyway.

Suppose the Iraqi people choose to use their democratic rights and elect in the next Saddam Hussein? Then what?
Shas'O Marsh
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Postby Shas'O Marsh » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:33 am

This so very interesting(Sadthat I've read it before) so let me pose a short question to all involved:
What's the point? Everyone is so entrenched in their beliefs that no ground will be gained on either side.
albino.black.sheep
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:36 pm

Postby albino.black.sheep » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:37 am

[quote="Shas'O Marsh":06754]This so very interesting(Sadthat I've read it before) so let me pose a short question to all involved:
What's the point? Everyone is so entrenched in their beliefs that no ground will be gained on either side.[/quote:06754]

But telling them that won't stop them from arguing their points. Therefore:

What's the point? Everyone is so entrenched in their beliefs that no ground will be gained on either side.

I'm sure Big-Will will lock the thread soon anyway, so let them have their fun.
Email notifications do matter, people.
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Postby HellStrykeXL » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:07 pm

I let FFXL know of this before. But he seems to come on here for four reasons:

1. For fun.

2. He uses this to get materials (from other views) and have an incentive to find references so he can write a novel on the Bush administration.

3. He'll use this as an ego booster and practice for writing hella long novels (that 9,000 word long post with the 40 something links is an example of this). Plus he has a collection of bookmarks that grows daily on this issue and he just feels like using them (see point number 2)

4. He doesn't want people to change views completely because he would have no one to talk to. He said so himself.
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:28 pm

albino.black.sheep wrote:I'm sure Big-Will will lock the thread soon anyway, so let them have their fun.


I seriously doubt this thread is in any danger of being locked. As far as debate threads go, this is the most civil one I can remember on the BBS. Us frequent posters are not resorting to flaming or idiotic name calling (for the most part; there's a few insults in here, but it's nothing vicious.) This hasn't been a thread of personal attacks and I don't see it devolving to that level, at least among the current regulars.

And any ways, this is a very important current event and there's every reason to have a place where we can yammer about it with other South Park fans.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:21 pm

I for one am glad that you are now explaining point by point why you disagree.

KTS wrote:What Saddam could hypothetically have done is not the same as what there was proof that he actually did. The WMDs the US went to war for were not there, any terrorist organization could have gotten the materials more easily from elsewhere, and any of the other nations that hate the US could easily do the same thing you guys are suggesting. You're not providing proof, this is just a bunch of fear and paranoia.


Hence the reason why we go after enemy nations with WMD capability and not just rely on MAD most of the time. There are a few comments I have on this.

1. For one, if any terrorist organization could get the materials as you say he could, then why would it be any more difficult for Saddam if he already had done so before?

2. We (primarily HSXL) did state that since he was already capable of sending in assassins into the US to try and take out a president that if he did the same thing over but sent them with WMDs, we not only would suffer major damage (the kind of damage is self-explanatory) on our own soil, but we would have no idea who pulled off the attacks. The evidence would be bodies, collapsed buildings, etc.

And since the materials to make such things aren't that hard to obtain (from what you say there are plenty of other places to acquire nuclear materials, or other WMD components), we would be left to assume that really any terror group could've pulled it off.

3. So based on history and based on what we know to be fact it's safe to assume that Saddam could do such a thing. Look back at point number four on "The List."

Now consider this, why do you think an enemy nation would acquire such weapons and from what appeared to be the case, hide as much as they could so inspectors would find nothing? Would they go through all this trouble for the heck of it? Why did he have them in 1998 (a time in which we know for sure that he had them), did he have them built just for the heck of it?

Based on his past use of WMDs we know that he would've acquired them to use them. Now since there was a pretty simple loophole to get past MAD, I think it would be safe to say that you can't just sit there while a country is obtaining weapons which they we prohibited from having in the first place. Wasn't O'Brien the one who said rules must be enforced?

O'Brien wrote:This country is a country of laws, and our government is expected to abide to those laws just as much as the People.


Never mind. From the looks of it it seems he's saying that we as a country should simply follow the rules.

So when you take into consideration that Iraq surrendered and promised it would cooperate why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards?

KTS wrote:I posted a list of dictators from around the world, in case you didn't notice.


I'm not going to deny this, but could you show me where? And did any of them fit the same conditions as Saddam, (off topic: or possibly even the Taliban)?

Other nations have possessed or pursued WMDs, defied the UN, and have actually harbored Al-Qaeda.


Which ones; again did any of them equal Iraq?

KTS wrote:And speaking of Clinton, don't forget what the Republicans (many of whom unflinchingly support the Iraq war) said when he sent troops into Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing at the hands of a brutal dictator.


What did they say? (I do agree though, Clinton has been a little understated when it comes to national security :? )

KTS wrote:As for the no-fly zones and the assassination attempt, those are the only ones specific to Iraq, and both would make this war more about settling an old score than about stopping a genocide.


So are you trying to suggest that coalition aircraft taking fire and an assassination attempt are no good justifications for war?

KTS wrote: Besides, if Al-Qaeda's plan to fly the fourth plane into the White House doesn't count as an assassination attempt, I don't know what is.


By now I think everyone realizes that these people are being taken care of. Just ask the enlisted in Afghanistan.

KTS wrote:I mentioned Saudi Arabia before, as they fit many of the factors, but they're supposed to be our allies.


No doubt they have their share of human rights abuses but for one, they sure didn't come close to what Saddam did to his own people, and two, should we just dissociate ourselves from them just for this reason and lose another ally?

Also, I wonder if you're truly aware of the fact that none of these factors have much to do with the real reasons why Iraq was chosen over other countries. Bush himself mentioned Iran and North Korea along with Iraq as high priorities, and this was prior to the Iraq invasion.


I'm well aware of this, and this is one of the reasons why I just don't get why people where shocked at the idea of war in Iraq, particularly after 9/11.

Notice the words in bold. I must ask, are you saying that his whole "axis of evil" concept was the biggest factor of the war and it had very little to do with some of the factors on "the list?"

KTS wrote:You're comparing being nuked in retaliation to sitting out a bunch of conventional bombings.


I'm pretty sure he knew that if we went in a second time we would either kill him or make him face trial in his own country (which under democratic conditions would mean death by whatever means).

KTS wrote:Saddam didn't act too much differently from other Middle Eastern leaders. Look into the reasons why he did what he did. His motivation was not insanity.


Elaborate on this. Why did he kill a quarter of a million people? Why did he let Zarqawi roam his country? Why did he threaten to shoot down coalition aircraft whether they were enforcing the No Fly zones or searching for WMDs? Why did he repeatedly deny inspectors access to certain areas or say that no Americans could be on the inspection teams?

While I don't think he was "insane," I would like to know what reasons you would cite for what he did.

KTS wrote:We're all aware of the fact that he said Hitler was his idol, yes. However you are still trivializing WWII and the Holocaust if you think that a run-of-the-mill dictator who had his balls in a vicegrip is the same as Hitler.


Two things:

1. Do you really think that whenever someone points out genocide in a given country whether it be Rwanda or Iraq or Sudan that they are trying to "trivialize" the holocaust?

2. I'm not saying he's a solid equal to hitler, I know there are quite a few differences, I'm just saying this guy needed to be taking out for similar reasons for why we took out Hilter and virtually all of his Nazi party.

KTS wrote: a. Saddam brutally put down uprisings by all 3 groups, not just one. Yes it's still murder, but it's not quite analogous, especially when you consider that their motivations were different.


Excellent point but all this means is that it's not the same as "genocide," which doesn't change the nature of his killings (which you already pointed out).

Secondly this is one of the reasons not that many people took it as seriously as they should, since it wasn't technically "genocide" the entire time, many people overlooked what was really going on.

KTS wrote:b. Saddam never achieved the level of conquest that Hitler did. He tried to annex Kuwait, but that didn't last long, and he even fearfully responded that he would leave Kuwait when we told him to get out.


I agree but look back up to point number one. I know they aren't equals, I won't deny that.

KTS wrote:c. There's a difference between invading because you choose to and fighting back because you have no choice.


I agree. But I do think there were pretty good reasons why we choose to invade. See points 3, 4, and 5 on "the list."

KTS wrote:d. Not quite true. Ba'athism was a form of secular socialism, and socialism is the diametric opposite of fascism, which is what Nazism was. It wasn't Saddam's extremist ideology that motivated him. Had you been talking about Al-Qaeda though, you would have been 100% correct.

e. Right, but see above.


Nonetheless, it was still deliberately modeled after the Nazi party.

Secondly, yes it was an extreme ideology that motivated the two, unless you think there is some other word for it.

KTS wrote:f. For different reasons. The nations sympathetic to Iraq when the US invaded did not want to see more Arabs needlessly killed, and resented US occupation of the Middle East in the first place.


I disagree. See point 5 of "the list" on the mass murders already occurring before the invasion?

KTS wrote:The leaders allied with Nazi Germany actually shared Hitler's megalomaniacal convictions.


So if they didn't share ideas with Saddam why did they side with him in the first place?

KTS wrote:g. Black and white fallacy. It's not just negotiations vs. shooting-war. Besides, why couldn't the US go about removing Saddam the way it did with Milosevic? There's certainly more than one way to handle a military operation.


If it really were that simple we would just shoot anyone from Kim-Jong-Il to the leader of Iran to, well you get the idea. It's not as simple as taking out a leader and then expecting everything to change. The video 3MX posted points out how just taking out Saddam by himself would lead to subsequent problems which make it much more complicated then "cut the head and you kill the whole body."

KTS wrote:h. There wasn't much violence going on immediately prior to the 2003 invasion, you know. Also I don't see how it's mutually exclusive.


I'm not referring to violence before the invasion. I'm referring to amnesty towards the insurgents. When we took out Nazi Germany the war ended with an amnesty towards the Germans. While I'm not saying that this means too much in the Saddam Hitler link I'm just pointing this out to emphasize why I feel there is a connection between Iraq and WWII.

KTS wrote:So you're saying you DON'T support the war in Afghanistan?


I don't really see where you got that from, but what I was saying is that your argument of "why aren't we at war with this country" is baseless. No other country fit the conditions that Iraq did in '03 not a single one. And if you need an explanation for why we are at war with Afghanistan as well, you shouldn't be on this thread.

KTS wrote:Hypocrite.


This makes me recall when you guys where accusing me of putting words in your mouth (O'Brien in particular).

KTS wrote:I believe I pointed out that Osama bin Laden wanted the same thing, just as he wanted for every other country in the Middle East. Yes he proposed working together, over and over, but it never actually got anywhere, since he and Saddam could never quite set aside their differences in order to unite against the Great Satan of the United States. Al-Qaeda was no more involved than the US was at one time.


I agree, but did we know this at the time?

KTS wrote:It wasn't until Saddam was gone, and the police state he ran went with him, that Al-Qaeda was free to expand into Iraq.


You obviously read the post but didn't read the links.

I already posted them several times explaining how Bin Laden (after some dispute) recruited Zarqawi to expand Al-Qaeda into Iraq and was doing so BEFORE the invasion, and that Saddam didn't really care. Here's some of them again:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArti ... eeast&col=

In the above link it proves how Saddam was asked by Jordanian officials to hand Zarqawi over. Saddam wouldn't budge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

And what do you know? This man even set up a weapons lab in northern Iraq in 2002.

I'd post the rest of the links, but why do so if they won't even be read?

KTS wrote:Besides, I think you were only trying to refute the empirical detail that Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq, so you're beating a dead horse. I think everyone knows about Osama's meetings with Saddam and Al-Qaeda's interest in Iraq.


So do you agree with me now, that they were roaming the country before the invasion?

KTS wrote:What, is it going to take something really bad to happen to convince you that there's a problem?


To convince me that they are anywhere near 9/11 strength, I would expect that they would've done a whole lot more by now.

KTS wrote:That's the way it was for Bush. The outgoing Clinton administration repeatedly warned him that terrorism would be the greatest threat they would face - that it would end up occupying all their time.


I believe he did make it clear that he was aware of the threat when he gave that "axis of evil" speech.

Not only that but I already pointed out how plans against Al-Qaeda were brought up even before 9/11:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

The sad part was pretty obvious. By the time they had their plans figured out 9/11 had already occurred. We had no Patriot Act back then. The loopholes and lack of information sharing weren't going to make it easy for him to know an attack was imminent and that they should just use whatever preemptive ideas they had at hand.

KTS wrote:Clinton repeatedly pushed for more anti-terrorism measures, but it was the Republicans who blocked him. Clinton stopped many terrorist plots, some of which would have been on the scale of 9/11, but that doesn't mean that Al-Qaeda was not still a threat just because the plots did not succeed.


Could you give me more info on the 9/11 plots he stopped and how the republicans blocked him? (yes, I mean links)

KTS wrote:I thought you admitted that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who actually did harbor the organization that perpetrated the attacks? Like the Taliban? If you're going to say that we're luring them in so we can fight them over there, why could this not be done with Afghanistan?


Pretty sure we're in Afghanistan right now. :?

At that time there was some pretty good reason to believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda may have been collaborating. We know today that this was false. If you have the chance to stop the expanse of an organization into a country that has some individuals who would greatly sympathize with Jihad, why let it slip, especially when all other factors that were used as a case for war are in play?

KTS wrote:Hardly. Those conditions had been present for years prior to that.


I'm very sure that the Al-Qaeda/Saddam issue didn't show up until a short time after 9/11. Also I can't say that he had restarted
or at least began looking back into WMD research programs until that time frame (the other instance after he was banned from having them happened during the Clinton administration, and he already took care of that).

Are you basically saying that the reasons for war were just, but that we didn't do it soon enough?

KTS wrote:What I find funny is how some people say that the Iraq war is being fought for the sake of spreading democracy. Yet when it comes to the issue of withdrawl, we shouldn't listen to the American public, because obviously they're just deluded and don't know what's going on in there.


I think the whole idea for spreading democracy dealt with democracy in Iraq, not much to do with the US.

KTS wrote:And we shouldn't listen to the majority of Iraqi people, because they're against the war anyway, and they have no idea what's best for their country. So apparently in a democracy, you just follow the leader, because the leader is always right.


They elected a leader and I'm pretty sure he has access to a better picture of what needs to be done. If a million people believe in a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea. (though I can't say it will be at all in mid 2008-2009).

KTS wrote:I probably don't have to point out that, anywhere you look in the world, a democratic system of government has rarely if ever been imposed by force. Democracy always starts from within when the people themselves choose to adopt it. If the US truly has something good, there's no need to "spread" it, because people will steal it anyway.


If a dictator is preventing that from happening, then it won't flourish on it's own. Didn't you say before that uprisings were attempted but soon thrown down?

KTS wrote:Suppose the Iraqi people choose to use their democratic rights and elect in the next Saddam Hussein? Then what?


What happens if that occurred in a democracy like the US? Impeachment.

ABS wrote:I'm sure Big-Will will lock the thread soon anyway, so let them have their fun.


If things remain constructive, that won't happen.

HSXL wrote:I let FFXL know of this before. But he seems to come on here for four reasons:

1. For fun.

2. He uses this to get materials (from other views) and have an incentive to find references so he can write a novel on the Bush administration.

3. He'll use this as an ego booster and practice for writing hella long novels (that 9,000 word long post with the 40 something links is an example of this). Plus he has a collection of bookmarks that grows daily on this issue and he just feels like using them (see point number 2)

4. He doesn't want people to change views completely because he would have no one to talk to. He said so himself.


Yeah, you really figured me out here. I basically wanted to see how others see things and yes, if people stopped posting on here, I guess I would suffer from severe bordem. What fun would it be if everyone, and I really do mean everyone felt the same way about everything?

3MX wrote:I seriously doubt this thread is in any danger of being locked. As far as debate threads go, this is the most civil one I can remember on the BBS. Us frequent posters are not resorting to flaming or idiotic name calling (for the most part; there's a few insults in here, but it's nothing vicious.) This hasn't been a thread of personal attacks and I don't see it devolving to that level, at least among the current regulars.

And any ways, this is a very important current event and there's every reason to have a place where we can yammer about it with other South Park fans.


I agree. There's not really much incentive for any of the mods to lock this one out. And this is a thread that probably would show up again under different names anyway so why bother?
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:52 am

As 3MX said, this is one of the rare debates where things have remained fairly formal and mature, and people don't automatically interpret every little disagreement as a devastating personal attack that warrants retaliation in the form of petulant insults. Plus I'm bored. And I find this less stressful than a lot of other things.
FreedomFighterXL wrote:Hence the reason why we go after enemy nations with WMD capability and not just rely on MAD most of the time. There are a few comments I have on this.

You admitted yourself that suspected / known WMDs were not reason enough to justify an invasion. This is why the examples of other nations pursing such weapons is entirely relevant.
1. For one, if any terrorist organization could get the materials as you say he could, then why would it be any more difficult for Saddam if he already had done so before?

Maybe because he didn't actually HAVE them this time? In the buildup to the 2003 invasion, we could clearly see news footage of former weapons manufacturing sites in Iraq being bulldozed. The inspections were having an effect, contrary to what most war proponents have said, and no nation can continue to spend like crazy continuously rebuilding its weapons systems forever. Just look at the former Soviet Union.
2. We (primarily HSXL) did state that since he was already capable of sending in assassins into the US to try and take out a president that if he did the same thing over but sent them with WMDs, we not only would suffer major damage (the kind of damage is self-explanatory) on our own soil, but we would have no idea who pulled off the attacks. The evidence would be bodies, collapsed buildings, etc.

Uh, the assassination attempt did not take place on US soil. It happened when then former president Bush I was making a triumphal visit to Kuwait during the Clinton administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... .war.talk/
3. So based on history and based on what we know to be fact it's safe to assume that Saddam could do such a thing. Look back at point number four on "The List."

Now consider this, why do you think an enemy nation would acquire such weapons and from what appeared to be the case, hide as much as they could so inspectors would find nothing? Would they go through all this trouble for the heck of it? Why did he have them in 1998 (a time in which we know for sure that he had them), did he have them built just for the heck of it?

Based on his past use of WMDs we know that he would've acquired them to use them. Now since there was a pretty simple loophole to get past MAD, I think it would be safe to say that you can't just sit there while a country is obtaining weapons which they we (sic) prohibited from having in the first place.

This is base speculation, and you even admit that it is. It's not hard evidence of what he actually did.
So when you take into consideration that Iraq surrendered and promised it would cooperate why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards?

Where's your proof that Iraq possessed the weapons that the US went to war over?
I'm not going to deny this, but could you show me where? And did any of them fit the same conditions as Saddam, (off topic: or possibly even the Taliban)?

Which ones; again did any of them equal Iraq?

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions ... /Dictators
The one I posted before, and:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Saddam's worst killings were done WHILE he was our ally.
No doubt they have their share of human rights abuses but for one, they sure didn't come close to what Saddam did to his own people, and two, should we just dissociate ourselves from them just for this reason and lose another ally?

Are you saying that some atrocities are acceptable if a nation is allied with us?
I'm well aware of this, and this is one of the reasons why I just don't get why people where shocked at the idea of war in Iraq, particularly after 9/11.

There you go with 9/11 again, even after you (and Bush) admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with it.
I'm pretty sure he knew that if we went in a second time we would either kill him or make him face trial in his own country (which under democratic conditions would mean death by whatever means).

Ask yourself. Would any leader of any nation in the world have complied with a 48 hour deadline to give up power and leave?
Elaborate on this. Why did he kill a quarter of a million people? Why did he let Zarqawi roam his country? Why did he threaten to shoot down coalition aircraft whether they were enforcing the No Fly zones or searching for WMDs? Why did he repeatedly deny inspectors access to certain areas or say that no Americans could be on the inspection teams?

While I don't think he was "insane," I would like to know what reasons you would cite for what he did.

From the link I cited twice:

Indeed, Saddam’s past behavior is no worse than that of several other
states in the Middle East, and it may even be marginally better. Egypt
fought six wars between 1948 and 1973 (five against Israel, plus the civil
war in Yemen), and played a key role in starting four of them. Israel ini-
tiated wars on three occasions (the Suez War in 1956, the Six Day War in
1967, and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon), and has conducted innumer-
able air strikes and commando raids against its various Arab adversaries.
Iraq happens to be located in a rough neighborhood, and it is hardly sur-
prising that Saddam plays hardball, just like his neighbors.
Furthermore, a careful look at Saddam’s two main wars shows that
his behavior was far from reckless. In fact, both times he went to war
because Iraq was vulnerable, and because he had good reason to believe
his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify
Iraq’s strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. This does not
excuse Saddam’s aggression, but his willingness to use force on these two
occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred.
1. Do you really think that whenever someone points out genocide in a given country whether it be Rwanda or Iraq or Sudan that they are trying to "trivialize" the holocaust?

2. I'm not saying he's a solid equal to hitler, I know there are quite a few differences, I'm just saying this guy needed to be taking out for similar reasons for why we took out Hilter and virtually all of his Nazi party.

You repeatedly compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler in order to stress the priority of removing the threat he posed. It's a bad analogy to compare him to Hitler given the differences, which I went over already.
I disagree. See point 5 of "the list" on the mass murders already occurring before the invasion?

Wrong. Look at when (as in the time period) most of Saddam's massacres were carried out.
So if they didn't share ideas with Saddam why did they side with him in the first place?

As I'm sure you know, even people in the Arab world who despised Saddam still sympathized with his plight when Iraq was invaded in 2003. He might have been an ass, but he was also a major figurehead / icon. And even though he was the leader of a secular socialist party, his death was still viewed by many as a martyrdom.
If it really were that simple we would just shoot anyone from Kim-Jong-Il to the leader of Iran to, well you get the idea. It's not as simple as taking out a leader and then expecting everything to change.

Yeah, but that's kind of the exact opposite of the point I was making.
I'm not referring to violence before the invasion. I'm referring to amnesty towards the insurgents. When we took out Nazi Germany the war ended with an amnesty towards the Germans. While I'm not saying that this means too much in the Saddam Hitler link I'm just pointing this out to emphasize why I feel there is a connection between Iraq and WWII.

But conditions in Nazi Germany following WWII and conditions in Iraq following the 2003 invasion were not the same, and the wars still are not analogous.
I don't really see where you got that from, but what I was saying is that your argument of "why aren't we at war with this country" is baseless. No other country fit the conditions that Iraq did in '03 not a single one. And if you need an explanation for why we are at war with Afghanistan as well, you shouldn't be on this thread.

You keep missing the point. Was the job in Afghanistan finished at the time? Did we wipe out Al-Qaeda or capture bin Laden? Were the Taliban truly finished? Was it not important to see to the reconstruction of Afghanistan? The US can't be everywhere at once, and as I already pointed out, Bush did divert resources away from the efforts in Afghanistan in order to wage war in Iraq. Only this time, it was without the CIA's help.

I agree, but did we know this at the time?

You're contradicting your own point below.

You obviously read the post but didn't read the links.

I already posted them several times explaining how Bin Laden (after some dispute) recruited Zarqawi to expand Al-Qaeda into Iraq and was doing so BEFORE the invasion, and that Saddam didn't really care. Here's some of them again:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArti ... eeast&col=

In the above link it proves how Saddam was asked by Jordanian officials to hand Zarqawi over. Saddam wouldn't budge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

And what do you know? This man even set up a weapons lab in northern Iraq in 2002.

I'd post the rest of the links, but why do so if they won't even be read?

This does not prove an allegiance between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. Also, did you miss the part about how the White House deliberately put off going after Zarqawi's terrorist camp? Besides:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ ... feld.iraq/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... port_x.htm
So do you agree with me now, that they were roaming the country before the invasion?

Again, they were interested in EVERY country in the Middle East, not just Iraq. You could look in any of them and find something that Al-Qaeda wanted with them. And don't forget where the 9/11 hijackers were originally from.
To convince me that they are anywhere near 9/11 strength, I would expect that they would've done a whole lot more by now.

Oh, so if it's not right in front of your eyes, you won't believe it, despite the evidence and the words of intelligence experts?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p99s04-duts.html
Not only that but I already pointed out how plans against Al-Qaeda were brought up even before 9/11:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

The sad part was pretty obvious. By the time they had their plans figured out 9/11 had already occurred. We had no Patriot Act back then. The loopholes and lack of information sharing weren't going to make it easy for him to know an attack was imminent and that they should just use whatever preemptive ideas they had at hand.

From that article:


ERIC DRAPER/WHITE HOUSE/AP
George W. Bush meets with senior staff in a daily briefing at his ranch
in Aug. 2001

They Had A Plan
Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance


By Michael Elliott

Posted Sunday, Aug. 4, 2002; 2:31 a.m. EST
Sometimes history is made by the force of arms on battlefields, sometimes by the fall of an exhausted empire. But often when historians set about figuring why a nation took one course rather than another, they are most interested in who said what to whom at a meeting far from the public eye whose true significance may have been missed even by those who took part in it.

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."


"I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
— Clinton National Security Adviser SANDY BERGER, to Condi Rice, January 2001


And that's the point. The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11—that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer, many of those in the know—the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries—were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.
~~~~~~~~

The article only proves my point. The administration spent their few meetings talking about it and postponing things, but never actually doing anything about it until it was too late.
Could you give me more info on the 9/11 plots he stopped and how the republicans blocked him? (yes, I mean links)

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sa ... orts.shtml
Yes this is a biased site, but it does cite nonpartisan sources.
Pretty sure we're in Afghanistan right now. :?

See my point above about shifting the focus to Iraq.
At that time there was some pretty good reason to believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda may have been collaborating. We know today that this was false. If you have the chance to stop the expanse of an organization into a country that has some individuals who would greatly sympathize with Jihad, why let it slip, especially when all other factors that were used as a case for war are in play?

You're basically saying that it's okay to attack someone just in case.
I'm very sure that the Al-Qaeda/Saddam issue didn't show up until a short time after 9/11. Also I can't say that he had restarted
or at least began looking back into WMD research programs until that time frame (the other instance after he was banned from having them happened during the Clinton administration, and he already took care of that).

Are you basically saying that the reasons for war were just, but that we didn't do it soon enough?

I was saying that the reasons given that were actually true applied long before 2003, when you and HSXL implied that they all came to a head at that time. Refer to what I said earlier about when Saddam's mass murders occurred, or the time frame during which he actually had WMDs.
If a dictator is preventing that from happening, then it won't flourish on it's own. Didn't you say before that uprisings were attempted but soon thrown down?

The uprisings I was talking about were the ones where Bush I repeatedly urged the Iraqis to try to overthrow Saddam, while having no intention of helping them in the least. Besides, my point was that history shows that democracy is not something that can be spread by force. If it succeeds in Iraq, it's because the people themselves wanted it badly enough to begin with, not because the US gave them something that would never have occurred to them otherwise.
Shas'O Marsh
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Postby Shas'O Marsh » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:02 am

triplemultiplex wrote:
albino.black.sheep wrote:I'm sure Big-Will will lock the thread soon anyway, so let them have their fun.


I seriously doubt this thread is in any danger of being locked. As far as debate threads go, this is the most civil one I can remember on the BBS. Us frequent posters are not resorting to flaming or idiotic name calling (for the most part; there's a few insults in here, but it's nothing vicious.) This hasn't been a thread of personal attacks and I don't see it devolving to that level, at least among the current regulars.

And any ways, this is a very important current event and there's every reason to have a place where we can yammer about it with other South Park fans.


I do agree that I don't think it'll be locked, but it all seems a tad...pointless. No matter what Freedom says, Kyle will have a retort and no matter what Kyle says, Freedom will have a retort. In the end, nothing changes because no one has shown himself to be right.
Not asking for a lock and it is good to read two dedicated people, just saying why I won't bother getting too far into the debate and asking why anyone would. I do have my answers now.
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:22 am

I've been in countless Iraq war debates since 2003, some more constructive than others, so I don't really mind since this is familiar territory. I still haven't gotten into my list of reasons why Iraq was chosen over other locations, and I wish we could talk more about ways to get the hell out of there as opposed to endlessly debating the rationale of the IWR. It'd also be interesting to hear ways in which people have interpreted M&T's views on the war, especially since they've changed as time has gone by.

Ironically the points I'm debating now are not ones I brought up myself. You can blame 3MX and O'Brien for some of those. :P
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Postby HellStrykeXL » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:13 pm

Wow that tenacious little f*cker finally decided to quite wasting his time on here and actually write the damn novel on this issue that he's been telling me about.

Looks like my advice finally sunk in. :lol:
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests