The whole Syria stuff has angered me more than I thought it would. I ended up getting into a discussion about it, and this has been sent to me, about why the Iraq war of 2003 was a "good" thing:
http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_p ... _why_.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start to justify that complete mess in 2003, and I'm not playing devils advocate, I just want help responding to it. I don't know all the ins and outs, I was only 13 when the Iraq war started, and still in nappies during Gulf War 1.
Help with a response to this?
-
JayJ
- End the occupationS. Yes, all of them.
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:16 am
- Location: The Bureau of Counterpropaganda
Help with a response to this?
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
"We know too well that our freedom isn't complete without the freedom of the Palestinians." - Nelson Mandela
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell
"We know too well that our freedom isn't complete without the freedom of the Palestinians." - Nelson Mandela
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell
Re: Help with a response to this?
1. The second Gulf war of 2003 followed the first Gulf war of 1991 which resulted directly from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The first gulf war was based on lies. The babies on incubators speech was a lie and Iraq was not putting troops on the border with Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and they were angel drilling into Iraq's oil. As a result between the wars Iraq war placed on an oil for food program meaning they were forced to sell their oil cheaply and over half a million people starved to death mostly children.
2. Instead of over-throwing Saddam at that time, the allies gave way to liberal sentiment and left him in power on the basis that he would never be in a position to threaten neighboring countries again.
wrong, Saddam was "left in power" because he set his own oil fields on fire. It was a Republican president that made the decision not to replace Saddam. And the Secretary of Defense at the time was Dick Cheney hardly a Liberal, and they made the conscious decision not to get rid of Saddam because they had no plan as to what to replace him with and feared what a quagmire it would create. They were right it did.
3. The terms of the 1991 cease-fire (not a peace settlement, by the way) forbade Iraq from developing WMD.
Yes it did and they compiled with that. Unless you have had your head in the sand the past 10 years it turned out that Iraq did not have any WMD and the Bush and cheney administration admitted that.
4. To that end a UN inspection regime was imposed by resolution 687 and several related resolutions, non-compliance with which would represent a breach of the cease-fire.
You are talking about UN 1441 and Iraq DID comply with it
5. Several years passed during which UN inspections were continually being thwarted.
NOt true in fact the Cheif Weapons inspector Scott Ritter repeatedly told the media that all the WMDs had been accounted for and destroyed by 93 he even wrote a book about it.
6. In 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the United Nations and economic sanctions and no-fly zones were imposed.
No in 1998 the inspectors from the US were caught doubling as spies for the CIA and were thrown out. INternational inspections continued
7. Then came 9/11 which underlined the world-wide terrorist threat and highlighted how failing anti-West states could be used as sanctuaries and attack bases for jihadists.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911
8. 9/11 also pointed up the dangers of UNDER-reacting to intelligence information.
lol no
9 The intelligence was showing that Saddam still possessed WMD and was continuing with his WMD programme, despite the terms of the cease-fire and related UN resolutions.
NO it didn't. The propaganda about the WMDs was recycled and debunked israeli propaganda form the 1990s
10. The UN inspectors, most governments, every intelligence agency in the world, and even Saddam's own generals were convinced that these weapons still existed and represented a threat, either directly through Saddam or indirectly if they were to fall into the hands of Al-qaeda. In a post-war interview with the Iraq Survey Group Saddam admitted that he was trying to give the impression that he had WMD for deterrent purposes.
Not true the US own inspectors and all the international bodies were actually convinced to the exact opposite.
11. If there were any doubts about the intelligence the feeling after 9/11 was probably that it was safer not to take any chances and that anyway why should a tyrant like Saddam be given the benefit of that doubt, particularly if it provided a legitimate reason for getting rid of him?
The invasion of Iraq was itself an act of terrorism over a million people died and Iraq was not a threat to thew US now it is under Shiiite control further strengthening the position of Iran.
12. After being given every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions (over a considerable period) Saddam rejected the final demand under resolution 1441 (passed unanimously in November 2002) which called for "an accurate, full and final disclosure of Iraq's WMD's and of all aspects of its WMD programme", and which encompassed presenting evidence that WMD stocks had been destroyed. Opinions differed amongst eminent international lawyers on whether a second resolution was needed for military action. Such differences are quite common in international law since very little is clear-cut in this fairly new and arcane area of the law.
This is the same reason you already stated and wrong for the same reason that they DID COMPLY WITH THE UN RESOLUTION you are wrong. The US offered ZERO evidence of ANY WMDs. You just said in number 11 that it was a let attack just in case type of situation.
14 To argue that the war was DEFINITELY illegal is not therefore defensible whereas the Prime Minister's parliamentary answer (March 17, 2003) putting the legal case for the war is legally defensible.
It was definitely illegal, the was no authorization for the war. There was no evidence of wrong doing. And countries like Israel break UN resolution all the time and nothing is done about it. Israel is guilty of every accusation made about Iraq.
15. The ensuing invasion presented an opportunity for (a) finally dealing with the WMD threat perceived at that time (b) removing a tyrannical dictator (c) neutralising Iraq as a potential base for world-wide terrorism (d) demonstrating that the international community could not be defied on such vital issues (e) allowing US troops to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and its holy places (which up to that point was one of AL-qaeda's main recruiting causes) and (f) allowing progress to be made towards a Middle East settlement (Saddam was offering 50,000 dollars for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers!).
a) there were no WMD b) the US put Saddam in power to begin with to fight the communist c) Iraq has never committed an act of terror on the US and was an enemy of Al Qaeda d)actually it was defied because the US ignored the opinions of the majority of the world e)The US put those troops their in the first place and the US could remove them any time, Iraq is not going to invade the US f)Oh bullshit it allowed for settleents alright Israeli settlement AKA racial colonies built with ethnic cleansing
16. Blair's dilemma was, therefore, this. To go into Iraq meant war with all its terrible consequences. But not going into Iraq meant Saddam defying the international community and literally getting away with murder thus setting an example to other dictators and enemies of democracy. It also meant Saddam proceeding with his WMD programme to a point where he might become invulnerable, possibly passing WMD on to the jihadists, continuing his repression of his muslim population, and continuing to undermine a Middle East peace settlement. Finally the need to keep US troops in Saudi Arabia would continue to give AL-qaeda a cause-celebre regarding the holy places. In other words he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
the international community did not want a war with Iraq. You have EVERY single fact wrong about the Iraq War[/i]
17 In coming down in favour of the war Blair probably saw this as the lesser of the evils and as the chance to act as a restraining influence on Bush in a way that those opposing the war were not able to do..
Blair and Bush bombed Iaq in Feb of 2001 before 9/11 and before any excuses about WMDs they were just looking for a pretext to start a war because Saddam told the IMF to kiss his ass.
18 Far from the invasion being anti-Islamic, the (Islamic) Kurds, anti-Saddam Sunnis and the Shias rejoiced at being liberated from Saddam's tyranny (even now despite the post-war mayhem a recent poll has shown that over 60% of the population believe that overthrowing Saddam was worth the hardship entailed, 75% of the Shias and 81% of the Kurds).
The Kurds were in Iraq because they were refugees from Turkey during its ethnic cleaning which the US supported. at the peak of the killing in 1997 Turkey was the second largest aid recipient after Israel from the US
19. Yes, terrible mistakes were made in the post-war period (as in any war). Amongst these was underestimating the sheer depravity of an enemy which seems to be prepared to destroy the country and slaughter its people rather than to see it progress under a democratically elected government.
You are so naive. The US destroy all the water treatment plant and electric plants in order to hire itself to go rebuild them and they fostered the sectarian violence the UK was even busted dressed up as Iraqis shooting other Iraqis
20 Iraq is NOT under occupation. The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN Security Council Resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi government took power. Coalition troops have been mandated by the UN to keep the peace. The US government is pledged to comply with a UN resolution requiring them to leave if requested by the Iraqi government.
Iraq was very much under occupation until Dec of 2011 when the mercenaries and military were thrown out
21. Millions of Iraqis risked death to elect their government. Their government therefore has a greater legitimacy than almost any other government in the world!
Actually the Sunnis refused to even participate in the election because it was a farce and so only one party was even voting and they took total control
22. That government wants our troops to stay as long as it takes to do the job. To cut and run now would be one of the most ignoble acts in our history.
We cut and run and guess what happened? the violence in Iraq dropped 10 fold
The first gulf war was based on lies. The babies on incubators speech was a lie and Iraq was not putting troops on the border with Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and they were angel drilling into Iraq's oil. As a result between the wars Iraq war placed on an oil for food program meaning they were forced to sell their oil cheaply and over half a million people starved to death mostly children.
2. Instead of over-throwing Saddam at that time, the allies gave way to liberal sentiment and left him in power on the basis that he would never be in a position to threaten neighboring countries again.
wrong, Saddam was "left in power" because he set his own oil fields on fire. It was a Republican president that made the decision not to replace Saddam. And the Secretary of Defense at the time was Dick Cheney hardly a Liberal, and they made the conscious decision not to get rid of Saddam because they had no plan as to what to replace him with and feared what a quagmire it would create. They were right it did.
3. The terms of the 1991 cease-fire (not a peace settlement, by the way) forbade Iraq from developing WMD.
Yes it did and they compiled with that. Unless you have had your head in the sand the past 10 years it turned out that Iraq did not have any WMD and the Bush and cheney administration admitted that.
4. To that end a UN inspection regime was imposed by resolution 687 and several related resolutions, non-compliance with which would represent a breach of the cease-fire.
You are talking about UN 1441 and Iraq DID comply with it
5. Several years passed during which UN inspections were continually being thwarted.
NOt true in fact the Cheif Weapons inspector Scott Ritter repeatedly told the media that all the WMDs had been accounted for and destroyed by 93 he even wrote a book about it.
6. In 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the United Nations and economic sanctions and no-fly zones were imposed.
No in 1998 the inspectors from the US were caught doubling as spies for the CIA and were thrown out. INternational inspections continued
7. Then came 9/11 which underlined the world-wide terrorist threat and highlighted how failing anti-West states could be used as sanctuaries and attack bases for jihadists.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911
8. 9/11 also pointed up the dangers of UNDER-reacting to intelligence information.
lol no
9 The intelligence was showing that Saddam still possessed WMD and was continuing with his WMD programme, despite the terms of the cease-fire and related UN resolutions.
NO it didn't. The propaganda about the WMDs was recycled and debunked israeli propaganda form the 1990s
10. The UN inspectors, most governments, every intelligence agency in the world, and even Saddam's own generals were convinced that these weapons still existed and represented a threat, either directly through Saddam or indirectly if they were to fall into the hands of Al-qaeda. In a post-war interview with the Iraq Survey Group Saddam admitted that he was trying to give the impression that he had WMD for deterrent purposes.
Not true the US own inspectors and all the international bodies were actually convinced to the exact opposite.
11. If there were any doubts about the intelligence the feeling after 9/11 was probably that it was safer not to take any chances and that anyway why should a tyrant like Saddam be given the benefit of that doubt, particularly if it provided a legitimate reason for getting rid of him?
The invasion of Iraq was itself an act of terrorism over a million people died and Iraq was not a threat to thew US now it is under Shiiite control further strengthening the position of Iran.
12. After being given every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions (over a considerable period) Saddam rejected the final demand under resolution 1441 (passed unanimously in November 2002) which called for "an accurate, full and final disclosure of Iraq's WMD's and of all aspects of its WMD programme", and which encompassed presenting evidence that WMD stocks had been destroyed. Opinions differed amongst eminent international lawyers on whether a second resolution was needed for military action. Such differences are quite common in international law since very little is clear-cut in this fairly new and arcane area of the law.
This is the same reason you already stated and wrong for the same reason that they DID COMPLY WITH THE UN RESOLUTION you are wrong. The US offered ZERO evidence of ANY WMDs. You just said in number 11 that it was a let attack just in case type of situation.
14 To argue that the war was DEFINITELY illegal is not therefore defensible whereas the Prime Minister's parliamentary answer (March 17, 2003) putting the legal case for the war is legally defensible.
It was definitely illegal, the was no authorization for the war. There was no evidence of wrong doing. And countries like Israel break UN resolution all the time and nothing is done about it. Israel is guilty of every accusation made about Iraq.
15. The ensuing invasion presented an opportunity for (a) finally dealing with the WMD threat perceived at that time (b) removing a tyrannical dictator (c) neutralising Iraq as a potential base for world-wide terrorism (d) demonstrating that the international community could not be defied on such vital issues (e) allowing US troops to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and its holy places (which up to that point was one of AL-qaeda's main recruiting causes) and (f) allowing progress to be made towards a Middle East settlement (Saddam was offering 50,000 dollars for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers!).
a) there were no WMD b) the US put Saddam in power to begin with to fight the communist c) Iraq has never committed an act of terror on the US and was an enemy of Al Qaeda d)actually it was defied because the US ignored the opinions of the majority of the world e)The US put those troops their in the first place and the US could remove them any time, Iraq is not going to invade the US f)Oh bullshit it allowed for settleents alright Israeli settlement AKA racial colonies built with ethnic cleansing
16. Blair's dilemma was, therefore, this. To go into Iraq meant war with all its terrible consequences. But not going into Iraq meant Saddam defying the international community and literally getting away with murder thus setting an example to other dictators and enemies of democracy. It also meant Saddam proceeding with his WMD programme to a point where he might become invulnerable, possibly passing WMD on to the jihadists, continuing his repression of his muslim population, and continuing to undermine a Middle East peace settlement. Finally the need to keep US troops in Saudi Arabia would continue to give AL-qaeda a cause-celebre regarding the holy places. In other words he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
the international community did not want a war with Iraq. You have EVERY single fact wrong about the Iraq War[/i]
17 In coming down in favour of the war Blair probably saw this as the lesser of the evils and as the chance to act as a restraining influence on Bush in a way that those opposing the war were not able to do..
Blair and Bush bombed Iaq in Feb of 2001 before 9/11 and before any excuses about WMDs they were just looking for a pretext to start a war because Saddam told the IMF to kiss his ass.
18 Far from the invasion being anti-Islamic, the (Islamic) Kurds, anti-Saddam Sunnis and the Shias rejoiced at being liberated from Saddam's tyranny (even now despite the post-war mayhem a recent poll has shown that over 60% of the population believe that overthrowing Saddam was worth the hardship entailed, 75% of the Shias and 81% of the Kurds).
The Kurds were in Iraq because they were refugees from Turkey during its ethnic cleaning which the US supported. at the peak of the killing in 1997 Turkey was the second largest aid recipient after Israel from the US
19. Yes, terrible mistakes were made in the post-war period (as in any war). Amongst these was underestimating the sheer depravity of an enemy which seems to be prepared to destroy the country and slaughter its people rather than to see it progress under a democratically elected government.
You are so naive. The US destroy all the water treatment plant and electric plants in order to hire itself to go rebuild them and they fostered the sectarian violence the UK was even busted dressed up as Iraqis shooting other Iraqis
20 Iraq is NOT under occupation. The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN Security Council Resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi government took power. Coalition troops have been mandated by the UN to keep the peace. The US government is pledged to comply with a UN resolution requiring them to leave if requested by the Iraqi government.
Iraq was very much under occupation until Dec of 2011 when the mercenaries and military were thrown out
21. Millions of Iraqis risked death to elect their government. Their government therefore has a greater legitimacy than almost any other government in the world!
Actually the Sunnis refused to even participate in the election because it was a farce and so only one party was even voting and they took total control
22. That government wants our troops to stay as long as it takes to do the job. To cut and run now would be one of the most ignoble acts in our history.
We cut and run and guess what happened? the violence in Iraq dropped 10 fold
Get The Empire Unmasked here
-
JayJ
- End the occupationS. Yes, all of them.
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:16 am
- Location: The Bureau of Counterpropaganda
Re: Help with a response to this?
Ah, thanks a lot.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
"We know too well that our freedom isn't complete without the freedom of the Palestinians." - Nelson Mandela
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell
"We know too well that our freedom isn't complete without the freedom of the Palestinians." - Nelson Mandela
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell
-
DelusionalGrandeur
- Anti-Neocon novice
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:01 am
Re: Help with a response to this?
As always, a concise, intelligent presentation of facts refuting what most sheeple are led to believe from the msm. Spot on Ry!
now how about that "monkey with a hand grenade?" I think it's time for you to take obombya to the woodshed.
now how about that "monkey with a hand grenade?" I think it's time for you to take obombya to the woodshed.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
~Denis Diderot
www.deepcapture.com
~Denis Diderot
www.deepcapture.com
Re: Help with a response to this?
i have been bashing on Obama since the primaries it doesn't matter people have psychological attachments for the man.
Get The Empire Unmasked here
Re: Help with a response to this?
Anyone with half a brain and look at his voting-record and the people around him, to have known what he really was. Furthermore, personally, i didnt trust him simply from the way he speaks; every word he says and the way he says it sounds scripted.Ry wrote:i have been bashing on Obama since the primaries it doesn't matter people have psychological attachments for the man.