Iraq

[Storm]

innocent bystanders always matter but unless we are talking about cerrtain events then it all depends who dragged them into it. If we are talking about Alqaeda then they are mostly non Iraqis who traveled there just to kill western troops, i think the responsibility of thier actions lies with them.

Ah but would they have gone to Iraq at all, if not to follow us?

 

[McBell]

innocent bystanders always matter but unless we are talking about cerrtain events then it all depends who dragged them into it. If we are talking about Alqaeda then they are mostly non Iraqis who traveled there just to kill western troops, i think the responsibility of thier actions lies with them.

For the most part I agree.
However, the Iraqi civilians that Al Quaeda have killed simply because the US was there is not something I can so easily dismiss.
Especially given the fact that the real/actual reason(s) the USA is in Iraq have as of yet been officially released.
And the fact that Al Quaeda was not in Iraq until the USA showed up there.

I would say the role of Alqaeda in Iraq though particularly brutal was over stated in order to somehow fulfil the need to justify the war

Overstated?
More like made up.

 

[kai]

For the most part I agree.
However, the Iraqi civilians that Al Quaeda have killed simply because the US was there is not something I can so easily dismiss.
Especially given the fact that the real/actual reason(s) the USA is in Iraq have as of yet been officially released.
And the fact that Al Quaeda was not in Iraq until the USA showed up there.

well if i agree that toppling Saddam caused a civil war where bystanders were killed because Alqeda saw an opportunity to engage in thier actions to further their aims, but any person or group that targets civilian has to take responsibility themselves,Alqaeda as well as targeting westerners also more or less declared war on Shia .

Overstated?
More like made up.

oh no not made up, they were there led by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and still would be there if not for the awakening councils

 

[jacobweymouth]

I have to agree with you.
At best it is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Now you're making up words...

So you are saying that as long as terrorism is kept from US soil it matters not how many innocent bystanders we drag into the war?

That sums it up. Though innocent bystanders are always dragged into war.

 

[McBell]

Now you're making up words...

Educate yourself:

Logical Fallacies .info - Fallacies of Presumption - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
​

That sums it up. Though innocent bystanders are always dragged into war.

Sad really.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you support the military action in Iraq, and why?

At this time I most certainly support military action in Iraq.
Colin Powell: "If you break it, you own it."

America "broke" Iraq, now it is incumbent on them to try to fix the mess they have created.
After years of mind-numbing screw ups, of late, things would seem to be getting a little bit better and that is encouraging.

Did you before we went in, and why?

No, I never did think it wise to invade Iraq.
Personally, I would have saved my political capital for Iran, but that's just me.
In theory, the job should have been finished during Desert Storm while there was distinct justification for an invasion.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm hesitant to start this topic, but hopefullywe've all cooled off enough to keep the conversation civil.

Do you support the military action in Iraq, and why? Did you before we went in, and why?

I do support the War in Iraq as its too late to pull out without being able to pass the reins over gradually and the elections although a small step is at least in the right directions.
I was'nt fully behind the invasion of Iraq because although Saddam was a Tyrant he was a good foil to Iran and sometimes the old addage of "better the Devil you know" is becomming clearer as most of the Terrorists in Iraq are trained in Iran.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Educate yourself:

Logical Fallacies .info - Fallacies of Presumption - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc​

​

Sarcasm, Mestenia, sarcasm...

Sad really.

Yes it is sad. That's why war should be avoided -just not at all costs.

 

[McBell]

[/indent]Sarcasm, Mestemia, sarcasm...

My apologies.

Yes it is sad. That's why war should be avoided -just not at all costs.

I agree.
However you missed the point.
Or you chose to ignore it....

 

[kai]

Ah but would they have gone to Iraq at all, if not to follow us?

If Saddam was still there? i dont beleive they would no. There desire to engage the US in particular is only part of there aim, Gaining a foothold in Iraq enabled them to engage in their war against Shia's. they also wanted to bring Iraq into their "Caliphate"

I dont beleive in the "Alqueda " elemant in a "for" or "against" the war argumant, Alqueda and their associates that fall under the Alqueda umberella can be found all over, they have a stated desire to kill americans wherever they are. its my view that Alqueda has declared war on us, and they are such an insidious organisation that we should engage them at every opportunity.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I agree.
However you missed the point.
Or you chose to ignore it....

I chose to ignore it because it would have led us nowhere.

I don't find it sad -it's a very old-fasioned, nationalistic attitude. I don't see how it could be considered sad.

 

[McBell]

I don't see how it could be considered sad.

Thus proving my point.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Thus proving my point.

No, I don't think so. You find the idea of putting the country's interests ahead of those of others sad. -I think it's heartbreaking that nation no longer inspires those feelings.

 

[McBell]

No, I don't think so. You find the idea of putting the country's interests ahead of those of others sad. -I think it's heartbreaking that nation no longer inspires those feelings.

Your strawman is rather comical.

Care to dictate to me what else I believe?

 

[jacobweymouth]

Your strawman is rather comical.

Care to dictate to me what else I believe?

What was it that you were saying then?

To clarify, by "others", I meant other countries and the people of those countries.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm hesitant to start this topic, but hopefullywe've all cooled off enough to keep the conversation civil.

Do you support the military action in Iraq, and why? Did you before we went in, and why?

Yes, I do and yes I did. Why? Well I have to admit it's purely for personal reasons rather than anything political or humanitarian. You see, my parents were held hostage by Saddam during the first Gulf War.

From the Bechtel website.
Bechtel Corporation: 1990 - 1998: Leading the Way to Change

On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi troops invaded neighboring Kuwait, threatening to touch off a wider war in the Arabian Gulf. The conflict created uncertainty in international oil markets, setting off a worldwide economic slump. A host of new projects was put on hold.

Meanwhile, a drama bigger than any engineering project was unfolding in northern and central Iraq. Within days of the attack on Kuwait, Iraq took 109 Bechtel employees and their dependents hostage. In September, 10 Bechtel employees—three Americans and seven British nationals who had taken refuge in their respective embassies along with their colleagues still trapped in Iraq—were snared by Iraqi immigration authorities, who lured them out by insisting that they appear personally to secure exit visas for their wives. When they left the embassy compounds, these 10 were immediately swept up, taken to a facility on the outskirts of Baghdad, and held there. Meanwhile, their families and colleagues remained in their embassies, some camped outdoors, with winter approaching.

My father was one of the 10 and my mother was at the embassy. Here is a link to the BBC story. Notice the picture, the couple sitting in the front are my parents, even though they aren't British.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 10 | 1990: Iraq frees British hostages

So, as stated, my reasons for wanting to see Saddam taken down are entirely personal. I had hated the SOB for more than a decade and was very happy to see him removed from power.

Now, as to the political angle. I have to say that I agree with Colin Powell in that it was not a good political choice to enter the Iraq war and for all the same reasons that Powell had. America doesn't have the stomach to do what it would take to win.

But on the Humanitarian side I still say it was a good idea. People keep saying that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction but in my opinion, Saddam was a WMD himself. The definition of a WMD is a weapon that can kill large numbers of human beings. We all know the ultimate weapon is a human being and Saddam has killed a record number of people so I say he counts as one. Taking him out was just as justifiable as taking out Hitler. Did Hitler have WMDs? Would his arsenal have been enough to justify WWII if that was the only criteria to judge by? Or was Hitler himself the WMD?

So, anyway, that's my story. Take it for what its worth.

 

[England my lionheart]

But on the Humanitarian side I still say it was a good idea. People keep saying that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction but in my opinion, Saddam was a WMD himself. The definition of a WMD is a weapon that can kill large numbers of human beings. We all know the ultimate weapon is a human being and Saddam has killed a record number of people so I say he counts as one. Taking him out was just as justifiable as taking out Hitler. Did Hitler have WMDs? Would his arsenal have been enough to justify WWII if that was the only criteria to judge by? Or was Hitler himself the WMD?

Well said

 

[Alceste]

I'm hesitant to start this topic, but hopefullywe've all cooled off enough to keep the conversation civil.

Do you support the military action in Iraq, and why? Did you before we went in, and why?

I do not support the military action in Iraq of Afghanistan, I never have, and I never will, for the following reasons:

I don't believe in the use of lethal force in any case apart from the preservation of one's own life, or the life of another in the face of a lethal attack (an actual one, not a hypothetical possible future one, and not in retribution for a successful lethal attack such as 9-11).

I don't believe in a violent, interventionist foreign policy is ethical, and I don't believe it accomplishes anything it claims to desire.

I particularly object to state violence in any form, whether perpetrated against its own citizens or against the citizens of another state.

I believe regime change in any given state is the responsibility and the right of the citizens of that state.

I do often support rebellion and revolution within any given state, by its citizens, against the authorities, to overthrow an appalling, corrupt, totalitarian regime, such as exists in Iraq and Afghanistan (and many "friendly" countries besides), but would limit my support to any measures requested of the international community by the citizens of that state. An example would be the request to intervene in the genocide in Rwanda, which the international community for the most part ignored.

 

[Yerda]

So, anyway, that's my story. Take it for what its worth.

Do you believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq had a positive humanitarian effect, Trey?

 

[kiwimac]

The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, it was wrong then and is wrong now. The people who have died, died unnecessarily as a result of American Neo-Conservatist adventurism.