Did we win the war in Iraq?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Zeebadee Because all the important claims that bush used for his definition of victory in Iraq were already true before he started his war. There were no WMD's,.

Revealing that in all the different statements of Bush that I quoted, not a one of them contained a reference to WMD, and yet, that is the strawman you are drawn to.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Revealing that in all the different statements of Bush that I quoted, not a one of them contained a reference to WMD, and yet, that is the strawman you are drawn to.

Evidently, you just want to cut and paste what suits you from your links. I actually read them.

"U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations on Thursday morning, forcefully urging it to compell Iraq to comply with Security Council directives on weapons of mass destruction."
CNN.com - President Bush's address to the United Nations - September 12, 2002

"Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. "
President George W. Bush's Address Regarding Iraq

The other links were dated after bush started his war, so of course they didn't mention the non-existent WMD's. bush had already re-defined his original objectives by that time.

[tengers]

Quote by: The American One more point to ponder. We did understand before we engaged operations to oust Hussein, the war would be costly and take a long time. Congress approved the measure. They continue to dump funds there. However, the draft of the Iraqi Constitution includes money paid back for restoration. Trig.

This is not correct. They said that Iraqi oil revenues were going to pay for the cost of the conflict, which was being predicted to be a small amount of money because Iraq's oil revenue was rather small at 2 million barrels per day and $20/barrel, that's $40 million a day. The cost of this war is now topping $3+ trillion when one accounts for the full cost of the war. If you took the entire oil output for the past 6 years, that would be $1,500 per barrel, or about $120,000 per Iraqi, or if you want to assume that we whacked 10 times as many of them, as they did us, it would be about $60,000,000 per Al Queda member.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers This is not correct. They said that Iraqi oil revenues were going to pay for the cost of the conflict, ......

Made up BS. No one ever claimed that oil revenue would pay for the cost of the conflict

[Royalist]

Quote by: barts Just wondering. As things seem to be winding down, with some hints that troops will be--well, maybe--coming home, I'm left wondering if the United States' Coalition of the (few) Willing won the Iraq war? Over at Fabius Maximus, the blogger is asking If we won in Iraq, what did we win? Was it worth the cost? Good question. My answer is that nothing was won, and the cost of winning nothing is measured in hundreds of thousands dead, many more horrifically wounded, millions of refugees, and billions perhaps trillions of dollars wasted. Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? No! Given what you know now about the war in Iraq, if you could, would you spare the lives lost, avoid the wounds, and take your money back? I would. Perhaps some will differ with my view.

First of all of course you didn't win as there was no real enemy, it was a fake war made for MONEY, but not primarily for that, the main reason was for more military power in the region for the USA and it's allies. Though of course had there really been an enemy that the USA wanted to get rid of they'd have been gone within months.

Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? No!

No, but it certainly would be with Obama, McCain, Gordon Brown and the ones manipulating those gone.

But it's stupid to think that the war will end soon, I think it will stay at least another few years.

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Made up BS. No one ever claimed that oil revenue would pay for the cost of the conflict

Sorry Barney, your boy's were poo pooing estimates of $200 Billion for the cost of the war and saying it would be in the $70 Billion range and oil revenues were going to be between $50 to $100 Billion range and that could be used for the reconstruction period. Here's a link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3419840.ece

[Sue53]

No, we did not win the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was hunted down, put on trial, then executed. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary Iraqis, who were living quite happily, were killed both during 'shock and awe' and in the fall-out of the West's invasion of a sovereign nation.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion, and in fact, that society was secular. Eventually the the world's policeman (USA) will have to leave, but they achieved their aim. Nothing as noble as ridding the world of Saddam's mythical WMD...they just wanted his oil. The place is still a potential powder keg and many bombings that occur in market places etc are hardly ever reported now..well, they are only Iraqis, aren't they?

Bush and Blair should have been on the scaffold with Saddam. They have the blood of thousands, both civilian and military, on their hands.

Bush has taken a cushy retirement and Blair is on a holiday cruise with a wealthy business man ...he looked so tanned in the photo I saw the other day, sailing along, not a care in the world. And no justice in this world, either.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers Sorry Barney, your boy's were poo pooing estimates of $200 Billion for the cost of the war and saying it would be in the $70 Billion range and oil revenues were going to be between $50 to $100 Billion range and that could be used for the reconstruction period. Here's a link. The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online

Sorry einstein but a "conflict" is not "reconstruction".

Quote by: tengers oil revenues were going to pay for the cost of the conflict, .

But feel free to slither on over to some more defendable position.

[tengers]

Barnhardt, the Neocons were replacing generals who were telling them they needed a lot more troops for this war and who were predicting much higher costs. And that was my point to American. This war's costs were grossly understated throughout its history. They didn't even include most of it in the annual budgets. This lunatic war cost 20 to 40 times what those jacka$$e$ were predicting. Parsing words will not change those facts.. Mr Wolfowitz, who later indicated the real reason for the war was oil was predicting oil revenues would take care of everything afterwards. At this point, I'd be happy to write off the first $100 Billion and find a source to pay for the other $2.9 Trillion..

[The American]

Quote by: Sue53 No, we did not win the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was hunted down, put on trial, then executed. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary Iraqis, who were living quite happily, were killed both during 'shock and awe' and in the fall-out of the West's invasion of a sovereign nation. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion, and in fact, that society was secular. Eventually the the world's policeman (USA) will have to leave, but they achieved their aim. Nothing as noble as ridding the world of Saddam's mythical WMD...they just wanted his oil. The place is still a potential powder keg and many bombings that occur in market places etc are hardly ever reported now..well, they are only Iraqis, aren't they? Bush and Blair should have been on the scaffold with Saddam. They have the blood of thousands, both civilian and military, on their hands. Bush has taken a cushy retirement and Blair is on a holiday cruise with a wealthy business man ...he looked so tanned in the photo I saw the other day, sailing along, not a care in the world. And no justice in this world, either.

If we did not win, why are we withdrawing troops? Should we then place defeat on the heads of Democrats, who are ordering this? Say yes.

Please do expliain about the happiness of the Iraqi before America, and her alliance of 26 other countries destroyed their lives? I am eager to learn of this.

Trig.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa From what I understand, much of Pakistan does not accept such a view and, at least in many cases, criticisms would not be slander.

I would expect that, he wasnt entirely the most popular person. However, he wasnt on the level of other dictators of this time, and actually did do some good things for Pakistan, despite having to rule with the military.

Whoever they arm, their victims most certainly don't consent to it. Who knows how many times these companies and US foreign policy have created a monster? But I love your implied formula for how to defend freedom: "It's not up to them to control the people they sell them to." If they turn the world into a weapons bazaar, it's not their problem, right? They will do what you did: Ignore the fact that a large portion of these weapons go to countries with lousy hum rights records. These aren't Hasbro toys, but you dismiss them like they are, and you ignored the link almost to it's entirety.

Well, nations have to get their weapons somewhere. You think that they are just throwing weapons around everywhere to whoever pays--this is not the case. Only around 24 countries receive any military weapons from US contractors. There is a very big pile of red tape and paperwork to get through before that though, and there are the obvious political barriers where they cannot sell to countries who probably would use weapons inappropriately--such as to attack civlians or such.

As for whether this is "legal", that hardly matters to the victims. Any number of things could be officially declared "legal," but it doesn't mean they are right. I think for the longest time about these issues because I care about more than "the law." Many others don't, I'm afraid.

Well, while I support you there, I think that ridding the world of all weapons is a bit beyond our abilities. In the meantime, it would hurt our economy even further to shut down or stop these compaines.

As for the 'stereotype" of companies, I guess you cannot see what IBM has done and is trying to cover up: [COLOR=#810081]IBM and the Holocaust home[/COLOR]

Once again, most. I know that there are many historical examples of massive corporate fraud and scheming, certainly we hear enough about that. Most businesses are run legitimately though.

I doubt they knew Hitler's intentions either.

No matter how hypocritical I feel, at least I know some have a hypocrisy many times grander than mine. I don't have confidence in Saudi Arabia's so-called "willingness to combat extremism." And, unlike what you said earlier, Russia isn't entirely more trustworthy than the Soviet Union, either. But it does make me think of something fascinating. Despite American implications that Iran is trying to build up a massive nuclear arsenal (which so many US allies already have anyway, and could just as well use on innocent people as our foes), you fail to notice the significance of Russian involvement. "Russia is building the Islamic state's first nuclear plant in Bushehr, a project that has attracted criticism from Western nations, who fear Tehran may use spent fuel from the plant in a weapons programme." [COLOR=#0000ff]Partnership For Global Security :: Projects & Publications :: News[/COLOR] I'm not suggesting that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but that the US is walking a fascinating tightrope of diplomacy that almost makes it look schizophrenic. On the one hand we want to bash Iran's nuclear energy program, but we also don't want to annoy Russia too badly. This is the kind of nonsensical situation modern states get into, apparently quite easily. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is similarly convoluted.

Russia is not stopping the US from making any moves. If we wanted to, we could attack Iran all the same, but I dont think thats going to happen. The reason an Iranian invasion is impossible is because we dont have the troops to do it, also because Iran is much stronger than Iraq was.

Inevitably, it was also in response to our support of unstable and repressive regimes.

Which ones?

It is not ethical and right for a country to do what the United States has been doing. But ethics are apparently gone. In this case, we were largely "taking risks" with other people's lives, and plenty of them paid the price. America always go back to the statist maxim that, in order to save something, we must destroy it.

How about: in order to gain freedom, there must be the willingness to accept that there will be sacrafices. We will do everything in our power to prevent them, but it might still happen.

I consider the Iraqi people just as important as Americans. There is no difference to me--all people on this globe are people just the same. I dont even care about the political reasons that made the war neccessary, I care about the people there.

Consider this: "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government." [COLOR=#0000ff]Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 - washingtonpost.com[/COLOR]

Probably the same people who claimed there had been a million civilian casualties in Iraq without even bothering to get any facts (propaganda)....and in the end the totals were around 150,000. However, the initial made up facts got public sentiment...and that is how false information and myths are born.

The "excess" death toll cannot be accurately figured out. So many of them could have easily died anyways...Iraq was a terrible country before too. HE ordered an entire countryside drained of water just to stop some people he didnt like. Thousands could have died in such incidents. Many parts of Iraq had bad infrastructure before, and lived in constant fear.

A dozen years after Saddam Hussein ordered the vast marshes of southeastern Iraq drained, transforming idyllic wetlands into a barren moonscape to eliminate a hiding place for Shiite Muslim political opponents, Iraqi engineers have turned on the spigot again.

[COLOR=#810081]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10572-2003Oct10.html[/COLOR]

While humanitarian support to help get utilities running again has been a slow process (hampered by the fact that insurgents purposefully destroyed water lines and other utilities) it is improving.

Now, where did you get your 96% figure from? I feel bad for any of the people out there who believe you. And I think it's time for something different. Grandpa h.

From the fact that most of the death toll estimates in Iraq are horribly flawed and overexaggerated out of either ignorance, or purposefully manipulating data. The Iraq Body Count is the best indicator of civilian deaths in violence (100,000) vs.
In reality, civilian deaths were rarely caused by US forces---probably there were less than in Afghanistan simply because the airstrikes were so surgical and refined. I would estimate no more than 1000 were killed by coaltion forces by accident in the entire invasion--and probably only a few thousand more later on. Where one single terror attack string killed 700 people.

Even the Iraq Body Count--which suggests 30% of civilian casualties were caused by coaltion troops, of which 60% occurred during the "shock and awe" invasion--doesnt make sense. One of the reasons is because many Iraqi military and paramilitary were brought into hospitals dressed as civilians, or pretended to be civilians.

Shock and Awe, National Geographic
[COLOR=#810081]http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/explorer/2005/02/[/COLOR]

In this style of attack, there is no way there could have been the massive civilian deaths that are said for the invasion (6,000-10,000)--supposedly 60% of Coalition caused deaths. Airstikes would have to account for most of these deaths, and from personal accounts of both pilots and people on the ground, the numbers dont add up. Troops on the ground usually cause few civilian deaths, and most accounts show that. There are exceptions of incidents where civilians are killed by ground forces, but in the US army that is rare.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I would expect that, he wasnt entirely the most popular person. However, he wasnt on the level of other dictators of this time, and actually did do some good things for Pakistan, despite having to rule with the military.

A glowing review if ever there was one.
Meanwhile, a study by the University of Illinois "reckons
that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would result in 17 million
deaths in Pakistan, and 30 to 35 million in India. The global environmental
impact of such a conflict is the stuff of nightmares."
The scariest show on earth - Asia, World - The Independent

Quote by: The Black Ghost Well, nations have to get their weapons somewhere. You think that they are just throwing weapons around everywhere to whoever pays--this is not the case. Only around 24 countries receive any military weapons from US contractors. There is a very big pile of red tape and paperwork to get through before that though, and there are the obvious political barriers where they cannot sell to countries who probably would use weapons inappropriately--such as to attack civlians or such.

List these 24 countries, please, and preferably in the form
of published statistics. Then face the facts: http://fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/pub...ort_July17.pdf

There is already more than 24 countries on this list, which is pretty much just a list of top recipients.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Well, while I support you there, I think that ridding the world of all weapons is a bit beyond our abilities. In the meantime, it would hurt our economy even further to shut down or stop these compaines.

Good. We should not have an economy based on war.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Once again, most. I know that there are many historical examples of massive corporate fraud and scheming, certainly we hear enough about that. Most businesses are run legitimately though.

Is this based on some sort of historical analysis, or just wishful thinking? I assume the latter. I mean, do we gotta assume monopolist companies caring solely for profit have our best interests at heart?

Quote by: The Black Ghost I doubt they knew Hitler's intentions either.

They did. Look at the link(s).

Quote by: The Black Ghost Russia is not stopping the US from making any moves. If we wanted to, we could attack Iran all the same, but I dont think thats going to happen. The reason an Iranian invasion is impossible is because we dont have the troops to do it, also because Iran is much stronger than Iraq was.

The point is, while Bush was picking on Iraq on WMD and human rights grounds, the US ally Russia was keen on supporting the very nuclear program that Bush expressed concerns about in Iran. I also suggested that such situations constantly illustrate the folly of power politics.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Which ones?

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for examples. Our influence in Iran and Iraq is another part of the puzzle, and so is our relationship between the Taliban, which didn't start out quite as rocky as it was made out to look later.

Quote by: The Black Ghost How about: in order to gain freedom, there must be the willingness to accept that there will be sacrafices. We will do everything in our power to prevent them, but it might still happen.

It's not doing "everything you can to prevent them" when you're going out of your way significantly to add to them. Nor is the United States government particularly interested in Iraqi freedom. If it was it wouldn't have sacrificed a huge sum of them.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I consider the Iraqi people just as important as Americans. There is no difference to me--all people on this globe are people just the same. I dont even care about the political reasons that made the war neccessary, I care about the people there.

If you are suddenly now a peace and love guru, and care about people in general, you shouldn't justify the means by which so many are needlessly killed and pretend the US government isn't a major supplier of those means. You might even theorize that this war was not absolutely necessary, but happened due to people like yourself who are almost completely unwilling to characterize the United States in less than glowing terms.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Probably the same people who claimed there had been a million civilian casualties in Iraq without even bothering to get any facts (propaganda).... and in the end the totals were around 150,000. However, the initial made up facts got public sentiment... and that is how false information and myths are born.

"Probably the same people" does not equal "are the same people." Anyway, 150,000 is still quite a high number. To make a rough estimate, that's about 15 times the amount who died on September 11th. Most of these people would not have died had the United States not invaded, just like approximately 3,000 wouldn't have died if hi-jackers hadn't acted upon a day we're all familiar with. Interestingly, if you were to downplay the significance of those 3,000 deaths, some American might slap you around. However, if someone such as yourself -- who supposedly cares about Iraqis as much as Americans -- downplays a figure of 50,000 Iraqi deaths, you'll more than likely gain more than a single of approval. That right there is propaganda, and a false doctrine, at work.


As Mario Savio declared in the mid-60s,
"There’s a time when the operation of the
machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take
part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies
upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus,
and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who
run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will
be prevented from working at all!”
American Rhetoric: Mario Savio - Sproul Hall Sit-In Address

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost The "excess" death toll cannot be accurately figured out. So many of them could have easily died anyways... Iraq was a terrible country before too. HE ordered an entire countryside drained of water just to stop some people he didnt like. Thousands could have died in such incidents. Many parts of Iraq had bad infrastructure before, and lived in constant fear.

Any number of destroyed people "could have easily died anyways." That does not justify their being destroyed. If we really want estimates and accountability, one way is to establish a global forum such the international criminal court, where incidents could perhaps be accounted for, and people (including US politicians, soldiers and mercenaries) could perhaps be held accountable not only for deaths, but for injuries and the destruction of property. I think Iraqis have, and have had, a right to live, to be sovereign, and to deal with their own political systems pretty much as they will.

Quote by: The Black Ghost From the fact that most of the death toll estimates in Iraq are horribly flawed and overexaggerated out of either ignorance, or purposefully manipulating data. The Iraq Body Count is the best indicator of civilian deaths in violence (100,000) vs. In reality, civilian deaths were rarely caused by US forces--- probably there were less than in Afghanistan simply because the airstrikes were so surgical and refined. I would estimate no more than 1000 were killed by coaltion forces by accident in the entire invasion--and probably only a few thousand more later on. Where one single terror attack string killed 700 people.

This suggests a number of things, including that those behind the higher death toll estimates must essentially be insolent. Assuming the higher estimates are wrong (which I do here merely for the sake of argument), it could be that they're only "wrong" in the sense that they are inaccurate, and not "purposefully manipulating data." Like you, I can assume the best of two evils, specially when the Iraq Body Count has a little more data than merely arguing that, "In reality, civilian deaths are rarely caused by US forces."

They are a little more nuanced and, quite frankly, honest than you have been.
The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, acknowledged that
"certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right
away," but indicated that "despite these flaws, the data and the analysis had
been approved in a fast-track peer assessment by other experts in the
field."
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/28...-invasion.html

Your suggestion, as usual, is that the US military, including soldiers in Iraq, could not possibly be anything but honest and upright people. You are still some ways away from rock solid proof of even that much. It brings to mind your earlier assumption that a war economy is not bad, and that related businesses are trustworthy in general. So yes, of course you would estimate that no more than 1,000 were killed by US forces. Any other estimate would eb bad for business.

I should also note the likelihood that al-Qaeda's role (and that of other foreign fighters) is probably much overblown in Iraq, due to propaganda reasons.
In 2003 the Washington Post noted that, "While there has been talk in Washington of
the impact of 'foreign fighters' in Iraq, intelligence officers here have repeatedly said
they believe their enemies inside Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi....Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo
Sanchez said that only 'probably a couple of hundred' fighters have come from Syria, Egypt,
Yemen, Sudan and other countries in the region.
The quality of U.S. intelligence in Iraq has proven to be a major
problem in recent months, and was criticized in a recent internal Army
study."
Saddam's Counterattack?, Wash Post

Quote by: The Black Ghost Even the Iraq Body Count--which suggests 30% of civilian casualties were caused by coaltion troops, of which 60% occurred during the "shock and awe" invasion--doesnt make sense. One of the reasons is because many Iraqi military and paramilitary were brought into hospitals dressed as civilians, or pretended to be civilians.

Do you have proof of this? I'm not denying some may have done this, but how many of these fake
civilians were there? And I should remind you that, for the most part, it hardly matters to those attacked whether they were really the target or not.

Quote by: The Black Ghost In this style of attack, there is no way there could have been the massive civilian deaths that are said for the invasion (6,000-10,000)--supposedly 60% of Coalition caused deaths. Airstikes would have to account for most of these deaths, and from personal accounts of both pilots and people on the ground, the numbers dont add up. Troops on the ground usually cause few civilian deaths, and most accounts show that. There are exceptions of incidents where civilians are killed by ground forces, but in the US army that is rare.

We can assume it's totally rare, especially if we assume the US is a purely benevolent power. Assuming every US military operation is going smoothly is like saying every drunk driver is going to stay awake. Here's a very obvious question for you: How do pilots -- your trusted sources here, who apparently would have no interest in lying whatsoever -- differentiate between civilian and non-civilian casualties in this type of fight? See, unlike you, I don't assume one has earned credibility simply because he or she has donned a certain uniform and has a level of public trust. On top of that -- and this may blow your mind -- I should mention the eternally questionable distinction between civilians and military personnel in general. But that's just another thought that is never, ever supposed to occur, let alone receive serious consideration.

Grandpa h.

[soothsayer]

First of all of course you didn't win as there was no real enemy, it was a fake war made for MONEY, but not primarily for that, the main reason was for more military power in the region for the USA and it's allies. Though of course had there really been an enemy that the USA wanted to get rid of they'd have been gone within months.

Someone who largely "gets it" .

To fine tune it it a bit:
The "money" the war protects is the U.S. dollar (with plenty of "grease" for the military contractors along the way) and the U.S "allies" are primarily China... who benefits by not having to get its hands dirty for securing the Iraqi oil from the sand our boys bled into (not to mention countless "innocent" iraqi civilians, too)

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa A glowing review if ever there was one. Meanwhile, a study by the University of Illinois "reckons that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would result in 17 million deaths in Pakistan, and 30 to 35 million in India. The global environmental impact of such a conflict is the stuff of nightmares." The scariest show on earth - Asia, World - The Independent

There could have been a war regardless of who was in power. I dont think it would have happened in reality, but it still is not the fault of Mussharaf, solely. He happened to be in power when the threat became real.

List these 24 countries, please, and preferably in the form of published statistics. Then face the facts: http://fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/pub...ort_July17.pdf There is already more than 24 countries on this list, which is pretty much just a list of top recipients.

I count only 12 different countries on those charts, and I can find little evidence to any major arms shipments to many nations. I suppose its possible, but I dont see where you got that from.

Good. We should not have an economy based on war.

We should not have an economy based on many things: consumerism, exponential scientific progress, credit, etc....

We cant really stop what exists without tearing all of society apart. We can only change the future...so reducing global arms shipments probably would be good, but still there are needs of nations to defend themselves. Someone has to supply weapons.

Is this based on some sort of historical analysis, or just wishful thinking? I assume the latter. I mean, do we gotta assume monopolist companies caring solely for profit have our best interests at heart?

I think that many of them, especially those that run them, are steryotyped by a number of scandals and problems, and by popular culture. There is the "everyday worker" and the "big evil boss". For big companies, it is the lowly worker and the evil monopolist CEO, who is overweight and carries a cane and wants to take over the world. The reality is that some people have values and some do not. Some companies do whatever they can to help the people, some are in it only for money...those are the ones we hear about most. Many, however, are good people. and their companies are not just out to control people.

They did. Look at the link(s).

Well, I couldnt read everything there, I got the gist that they did some bad sh*t.

The point is, while Bush was picking on Iran on WMD and human rights grounds, the US ally Russia was keen on supporting the very nuclear program that Bush expressed concerns about in Iran. I also suggested that such situations constantly illustrate the folly of power politics.

Russia isnt really that much of an ally. On paper, maybe we are supposed to shake hands and be friendly, but we are really on opposite sides of the spectrum, even after seeing the end of the USSR, only so much has changed. Russia is looking for allies in the middle east, and has a history of helping Iran, which hates the US. I suppose this is not dissimilar to the US supporting Georgia though. They are all the same on some level, and some are right, some are wrong.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for examples. Our influence in Iran and Iraq is another part of the puzzle, and so is our relationship between the Taliban, which didn't start out quite as rocky as it was made out to look later.

Relationship with the Taliban? Our relationship was that the government in Afghanistan that we helped to install during the 80s was overthrown by the Taliban and Al-Queda bombers. Foolishly, when this happened, we did nothing. Goes to show how policies can differ from administration to administration.

It's not doing "everything you can to prevent them" when you're going out of your way significantly to add to them. Nor is the United States government particularly interested in Iraqi freedom. If it was it wouldn't have sacrificed a huge sum of them.

The Iraqis killed were overwhelmingly killed by terrorist cells and Islamic Extremists of different sects. The US forces did everything in their power to eliminate civilian casualties, even though that is impossible in war. However, in a revolution, people know they might lay their lives on the line to bring freedom to their people. Contrary to popular opinion, the invasion was sidelined to a sort of revolution against Saddam, which enjoyed popular support, but did not have unification. Everyone hated Saddam and numerous attempted rebellions were quelled over the years. As expected, most people were happy to get rid of Saddam and set up a new government. Had there been no insurgency, or terrorist attacks, I think this debate would be very different.

If you are suddenly now a peace and love guru, and care about people in general, you shouldn't justify the means by which so many are needlessly killed and pretend the US government isn't a major supplier of those means. You might even theorize that this war was not absolutely necessary, but happened due to people like yourself who are almost completely unwilling to characterize the United States in less than glowing terms.

'Glowing' is hardly the way I would put it. Every nation on Earth calls itself the best, but actions are what seem to show more than words. The United States actions, more than most other nations, show that there is a moral compassion and at least value placed on life and freedom. There have been exceptions, but generally, this is what I would expect from any politician in the United States, adminstration, and president. I watch carefully to see who's real and whos a faker. There have been fakers, and there have been good people.

The war was neccessary because of the reality of the situation in Iraq, and because of the history of events leading up to it. The cause was there, the long-term support was not. Most of that came from the lack of WMds found in Iraq, which was perhaps one of the greatest flaws in intelligence. However, the war was neccesary regardless, as I would say our action is neccesary in other nations as well--Somalia, North Korea,Sudan...we just dont have a valid excuse to do anything about it...because unfortunately, "helping others" is not a good enought reason to go to war in the eyes of the international community. Shows the kind of world we live in.

"Probably the same people" does not equal "are the same people." Anyway, 150,000 is still quite a high number. To make a rough estimate, that's about 15 times the amount who died on September 11th. Most of these people would not have died had the United States not invaded, just like approximately 3,000 wouldn't have died if hi-jackers hadn't acted upon a day we're all familiar with. Interestingly, if you were to downplay the significance of those 3,000 deaths, some American might slap you around. However, if someone such as yourself -- who supposedly cares about Iraqis as much as Americans -- downplays a figure of 50,000 Iraqi deaths, you'll more than likely gain more than a single of approval. That right there is propaganda, and a false doctrine, at work.

Nothing is downplayed, but it is not to be exxagerated either. It is also not to be placed on the heads of the wrong people. To say we are the ones ultimately responsible for the deaths caused by terrorists is ridiculous. Using a transitive property of blame is something done by bad politicians and criminals. You say--well if (A)--Iraq Invasion---hadn't happened, then (B)--many Iraqi deaths---wouldnt have occured. All this without taking notice of (C)---Iraqi deaths almost entirely at the hands of terrorists and extremists.

If we choose to do nothing in every situation becase we are afraid of this transitive property where our actions will in some way cause some pain because of someone else---nothing changes--the old regime stays the same. Dictators are free to rule their worlds, expand their power. The people there can die slowly, live terrible and meaningless lives, live in fear. It wont make headline news--in fact--it wont make news at all. Somewhere, people have to choose the difference between a pointless, life in fear...or the chance of freedom. Some people--like those that lived under the 1984-esque regime of Saddam--could not fight back...because the power controlling them was too great. Rebellions were crushed time and again, countless crimes against humanity committed and allowed to happen under the noses of the world--while we have to sit and watch behind a sea of red tape.

Maybe we shouldnt stick our nose into someone elses door or listen to someone elses cry for help--but in the end, apathy is death.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost There could have been a war regardless of who was in power. I dont think it would have happened in reality, but it still is not the fault of Mussharaf, solely. He happened to be in power when the threat became real.

Do you have anything to contribute here, other than blind rationalizations?

Quote by: The Black Ghost I count only 12 different countries on those charts, and I can find little evidence to any major arms shipments to many nations. I suppose its possible, but I dont see where you got that from.

Maybe you didn't understand the link. You apparently haven't understood a single link I've provided thus far, so it wouldn't be anything new.

Quote by: The Black Ghost We should not have an economy based on many things: consumerism, exponential scientific progress, credit, etc....

That is given as a response?

Quote by: The Black Ghost We cant really stop what exists without tearing all of society apart. We can only change the future... so reducing global arms shipments probably would be good, but still there are needs of nations to defend themselves. Someone has to supply weapons.

If you're using the coercive power of government, or government ideology to restrict freedom
and liberty, then yes, all of your statements directly above are accurate. That aside, there is NO credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack or that they were a significant threat the the United States.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I think that many of them, especially those that run them, are steryotyped by a number of scandals and problems, and by popular culture. There is the "everyday worker" and the "big evil boss". For big companies, it is the lowly worker and the evil monopolist CEO, who is overweight and carries a cane and wants to take over the world. The reality is that some people have values and some do not. Some companies do whatever they can to help the people, some are in it only for money... those are the ones we hear about most. Many, however, are good people. and their companies are not just out to control people.

Well, they do want to keep people as lowly workers. People with power tend to abuse it quite frequently. It can be a CEO or some religious leader. Rev. Jerry Falwell, for example, once said
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our
country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have
taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a
happy day that will be!" That's not a far cry from what a number of power-seekers wish to approximate in their own fields of interest. Christians tend to hate atheists and the rich tend to only care about others to the extent that they can charge them fees. All of this can be proven rather easily everyday.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Relationship with the Taliban? Our relationship was that the government in Afghanistan that we helped to install during the 80s was overthrown by the Taliban and Al-Queda bombers. Foolishly, when this happened, we did nothing. Goes to show how policies can differ from administration to administration.

Administration after administration has not been allowing facts, or basic and decent principles, to inform policies.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The Iraqis killed were overwhelmingly killed by terrorist cells and Islamic Extremists of different sects. The US forces did everything in their power to eliminate civilian casualties, even though that is impossible in war. However, in a revolution, people know they might lay their lives on the line to bring freedom to their people. Contrary to popular opinion, the invasion was sidelined to a sort of revolution against Saddam, which enjoyed popular support, but did not have unification. Everyone hated Saddam and numerous attempted rebellions were quelled over the years. As expected, most people were happy to get rid of Saddam and set up a new government. Had there been no insurgency, or terrorist attacks, I think this debate would be very different.

You say this because you simply want US responsibility hidden before it could start. I'm sure you would justify US support of people like Suharto (Remembering A Shared History - Suharto and the U.S.) for similar reasons. And you constantly fail to see the irony of Bush's statments. He promised to spare - "in every way we can" - innocent Iraqis. But he also said, "If war is forced
upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail." That is actually quite a blatant contradiction, and now especially we know that, if we indeed want to avoid civilian casualties, we should not start a war. Look at history. If the US really cared about the people of Cuba and the risk of someone like Castro coming into power, they wouldn't have supported Batista (for that matter, Batista arguably wasn't any better -- very few people said, "Bye Batista, we'll miss you!). The point is, you never know what can happen when you support thugs, or see people torn to shreds by the US bombs. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, other than your possibly being brainwashed into supporting virtually anything the US does, or could do.

Quote by: The Black Ghost 'Glowing' is hardly the way I would put it. Every nation on Earth calls itself the best, but actions are what seem to show more than words. The United States actions, more than most other nations, show that there is a moral compassion and at least value placed on life and freedom. There have been exceptions, but generally, this is what I would expect from any politician in the United States, adminstration, and president. I watch carefully to see who's real and whos a faker. There have been fakers, and there have been good people.

Most of our nation's actions do nothing to indicate "moral compassion" and a "value placed on life and freedom." Even the best actions are undertaken for cynical motives to keep people in line and under the rule of authority. The very premise that an entity exists called "The United States," that is a part of all of us on "its" soil, is rather diabolical. History will judge the United States, but the judgment will never be accurate until we shed this premise and look at what the deluded masses have done in its name. In largescale politics, it's not that we have a run-in with this faker or that. The masses themselves are the fakers.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The war was neccessary because of the reality of the situation in Iraq, and because of the history of events leading up to it. The cause was there, the long-term support was not. Most of that came from the lack of WMds found in Iraq, which was perhaps one of the greatest flaws in intelligence. However, the war was neccesary regardless, as I would say our action is neccesary in other nations as well--Somalia, North Korea,Sudan... we just dont have a valid excuse to do anything about it... because unfortunately, "helping others" is not a good enought reason to go to war in the eyes of the international community. Shows the kind of world we live in.

Britain had plenty of justifications for their projects in India, too. However, putting your "reality" (your kind of thinking, or not thinking) aside, this has been a counter-productive and undemocratic war, even with the Iraqi elections. Democracy is not something you can impose by a foreign occupation. Let's go back again to when Saddam was in power, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds and is receiving direct help
from U.S. foreign policy. Where was the "democracy" then? It was a mirage, pretty much like it is now. And it was just a small part of what made us one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. That perception alone tests your theory in a rather significant way, I would think.
After all, the Bush administration had been very straightforward about wishing to hijack the US government and military for their rather fascist goals, and Obama is apparently not entirely different.
Somalia may be the next target, but simply because they have oil.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Nothing is downplayed, but it is not to be exxagerated either. It is also not to be placed on the heads of the wrong people. To say we are the ones ultimately responsible for the deaths caused by terrorists is ridiculous. Using a transitive property of blame is something done by bad politicians and criminals. You say--well if (A)--Iraq Invasion---hadn't happened, then (B)--many Iraqi deaths---wouldnt have occured. All this without taking notice of (C)---Iraqi deaths almost entirely at the hands of terrorists and extremists.

If this were meant to be ironic, maybe it would make sense. The thing is, -- and hopefully you'll at least admit this much -- even if the US government doesn't have the best interests at heart (which I think is the case, but just for the sake of argument), it would still feel licensed to do virtually anything it wants. After all, we did support future Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein. So before you liken my reasoning to that of a "bad politician or criminal," consider what the US government has done in fact, whatever its reasons. And, by the way, the reasoning is accurate anyway. If the invasion hadn't occurred, many Iraqi deaths would have certainly been prevented, and many terrorists and extremists wouldn't have run amok in Iraq. And if they eventually had, that's not necessarily our business anyway, just like Saddam Hussein having WMD's wouldn't have really been a valid excuse to invade. Plenty of countries have WMD's that they've threatened to use in self-defense. The US is in fact the only country to have actually done so, and in areas densely populated by civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Plus, as I mentioned, the US supported Saddam even after it was known that he had gassed Kurds. But, if people believe in an imaginary man in the sky, I guess they can believe in anything. Yes, our policies are somehow moral simply because they are ours. If anyone does something similar to what we do but are not "us," then we can more easily consider them immoral. This "white man's burden"-style thinking is clearly dangerous, and I urge any readers not to make a career of it.

Quote by: The Black Ghost If we choose to do nothing in every situation becase we are afraid of this transitive property where our actions will in some way cause some pain because of someone else---nothing changes--the old regime stays the same. Dictators are free to rule their worlds, expand their power. The people there can die slowly, live terrible and meaningless lives, live in fear. It wont make headline news--in fact--it wont make news at all. Somewhere, people have to choose the difference between a pointless, life in fear... or the chance of freedom. Some people--like those that lived under the 1984-esque regime of Saddam--could not fight back... because the power controlling them was too great. Rebellions were crushed time and again, countless crimes against humanity committed and allowed to happen under the noses of the world--while we have to sit and watch behind a sea of red tape.

I'll have to hold my applause to your little speech, I'm afraid.

Depsite what you say, not supporting thugs, terrorists and coups is not necessarily "doing nothing in every situation." For example, I think political asylum is a perfectly valid concept. But, if I remember correctly, the US actually treats such people rather badly, and even charges fees for political asylum. It's just another example of us not being heroes, but sons of bitches.

Not only has this war been considered almost pointless, except for profits inside our militarized global economy, but it's left the country largely destroyed and the people living in even greater fear than they had been before, but the economic cost has been great for Iraqis, as well as for us. And much of Iraq, like much of the United States, is in the private domain of a handful of self-proclaimed experts in the name of "government by the people." This is nothing but one of the greatest, authentic conspiracies of all time.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Maybe we shouldnt stick our nose into someone elses door or listen to someone elses cry for help--but in the end, apathy is death.

Blowing up someone's house is a little different from "sticking our nose into someone else's door," and I don't think too many Iraqis actually wanted their country to be invaded, their infrastructure destroyed, and everything to be de-stabilized. Asking to be invaded is pretty much like asking for a death warrant. In fact, I'd say that any Iraqis who wanted something like this to happen would have to have been incredibly stupid, incredibly twisted, or both.

Grandpa h.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa That is given as a response?

Why not?

If you're using the coercive power of government, or government ideology to restrict freedom and liberty, then yes, all of your statements directly above are accurate. That aside, there is NO credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack or that they were a significant threat the the United States.

I dont know where the last part came into this, but that is true. They probably had no link to 9.11, although it is possible they knew something was going to happen (which Saddam would have gladly supported). About them being a significant threat--they may not be a threat ot the mainland, but they are a threat to US civilians and soldiers abroad, on their various duties in the middle east. They were also a threat because of the power they weilded with their oil. More importantly, the were a threat to their own people and the other Arab countries and US allies in the region. A war does not have to be fought purely in self-defense to be legit, considering isolationism is what usually brings nations into war anyways.

Well, they do want to keep people as lowly workers. People with power tend to abuse it quite frequently. It can be a CEO or some religious leader. Rev. Jerry Falwell, for example, once said "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" That's not a far cry from what a number of power-seekers wish to approximate in their own fields of interest. Christians tend to hate atheists and the rich tend to only care about others to the extent that they can charge them fees. All of this can be proven rather easily everyday.

I think a better generalization that encompasses all people is this: people tend to care more about people like themselves. However, to make sweeping generalizations is always unfair, so I judge every individual by what they do.

Administration after administration has not been allowing facts, or basic and decent principles, to inform policies.

That is not true at all. They have all the facts they need, more than we will ever hear. Many presidents have strong principles, maybe there have been examples of those who were not so good, but I think that comes down to "everyone is human". I would say that American presidents have more principle than most other nations.

You say this because you simply want US responsibility hidden before it could start. I'm sure you would justify US support of people like Suharto (Remembering A Shared History - Suharto and the U.S.) for similar reasons. And you constantly fail to see the irony of Bush's statments. He promised to spare - "in every way we can" - innocent Iraqis. But he also said, "If war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail." That is actually quite a blatant contradiction, and now especially we know that, if we indeed want to avoid civilian casualties, we should not start a war.

That is the pacifist do-nothing way. We must avoid civilian casualties, but we also must do what must be done to help those people, and in turn, help ourselves. War is often branded as "evil" generally. However, is it more evil to kill to stop killings, or sit and watch others be killed and do nothing? Under what circumstances do you think war is neccesary--only in direct defense?

What he meant was, in the event of war, we will do everything in our power to prevent civilian deaths and protect the populace of Iraq. This was done, whether or not you are willing to accept it. There have been mistakes, errors, and even individual atrocities by soldiers who were acting against orders...but they are hardly preventable occurances--people will make some mistakes, circumstances will change, and some people will act like criminals in any country they go to.

Look at history. If the US really cared about the people of Cuba and the risk of someone like Castro coming into power, they wouldn't have supported Batista (for that matter, Batista arguably wasn't any better -- very few people said, "Bye Batista, we'll miss you!). The point is, you never know what can happen when you support thugs, or see people torn to shreds by the US bombs. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, other than your possibly being brainwashed into supporting virtually anything the US does, or could do.

Perhaps youve been brainwashed in the opposite manner. And to repeat a point you should have heard me say many times by now, I do not support every single action taken by every person or leader in the United States. Generally, I do, but I also have to take into account the other side.

Supporting dictators to promote certain governments was a terrible mistake in almost every situation, in retrospect. However, in the context of the times, things were very different. There were many more dictatorships in the past than their our now, and often when military action couldnt directly place a desired supporter in power, we went to the next best thing--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Admittedly, a poor strategy, as it hurt our credibility, which in the end was more valuable than actually stopping communism. At the time though, that seemed like the greatest threat. It was the common fear, and there was some reason to fear it--so many people made many bad decisions in power to stop communists--because of paranoia more than anything. The Russians did the same to us.

Most of our nation's actions do nothing to indicate "moral compassion" and a "value placed on life and freedom." Even the best actions are undertaken for cynical motives to keep people in line and under the rule of authority. The very premise that an entity exists called "The United States," that is a part of all of us on "its" soil, is rather diabolical. History will judge the United States, but the judgment will never be accurate until we shed this premise and look at what the deluded masses have done in its name. In largescale politics, it's not that we have a run-in with this faker or that. The masses themselves are the fakers.

Can we drop the constant meaningless rhetoric? I keep expecting to hear you mention the New World Order and the Illumnati conspiracy. If you think that the US is such a terrible evil "Big Brother" then you are horribly deluded...we may not be perfect, but we're among the best and most free nations. As I said, if you want, start a revolution, see if you can find a good alternative to our government.

Britain had plenty of justifications for their projects in India, too. However, putting your "reality" (your kind of thinking, or not thinking) aside, this has been a counter-productive and undemocratic war, even with the Iraqi elections. Democracy is not something you can impose by a foreign occupation (1). Let's go back again to when Saddam was in power, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds and is receiving direct help from U.S. foreign policy. Where was the "democracy" then? It was a mirage, pretty much like it is now. And it was just a small part of what made us one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. That perception alone tests your theory in a rather significant way, I would think.
After all, the Bush administration had been very straightforward about wishing to hijack the US government and military for their rather fascist goals, and Obama is apparently not entirely different.
Somalia may be the next target, but simply because they have oil.(2)[/QUOTE]
1. Well, would you rather we put a dictator in power? I mean, what the hell else is there to do? Tell me. Why shouldnt we help them establish a better government--obviously they want a representative government.
2. Regardless, is securing peace not better than the alternative?

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa If this were meant to be ironic, maybe it would make sense. The thing is, -- and hopefully you'll at least admit this much -- even if the US government doesn't have the best interests at heart (which I think is the case, but just for the sake of argument), it would still feel licensed to do virtually anything it wants. After all, we did support future Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein. So before you liken my reasoning to that of a "bad politician or criminal," consider what the US government has done in fact, whatever its reasons. And, by the way, the reasoning is accurate anyway. If the invasion hadn't occurred, many Iraqi deaths would have certainly been prevented, and many terrorists and extremists wouldn't have run amok in Iraq. And if they eventually had, that's not necessarily our business anyway, just like Saddam Hussein having WMD's wouldn't have really been a valid excuse to invade. Plenty of countries have WMD's that they've threatened to use in self-defense. The US is in fact the only country to have actually done so, and in areas densely populated by civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Plus, as I mentioned, the US supported Saddam even after it was known that he had gassed Kurds. But, if people believe in an imaginary man in the sky, I guess they can believe in anything. Yes, our policies are somehow moral simply because they are ours. If anyone does something similar to what we do but are not "us," then we can more easily consider them immoral. This "white man's burden"-style thinking is clearly dangerous, and I urge any readers not to make a career of it.

Lets focus on now, not the past. We live in the now, after all. If we keep going back to things that happened 20-30+ years ago, Im sure there are plenty of examples to support any number of ideas.

Sure, some deaths would have been prevented--we couldnt have anticipated the scale of those deaths--but even so, we still have to do something. You keep talking about how the US is tyrannical and must be stopped. Well, why then, is it so hard to think about stopping (what even you must admit) is a much worse and real tyranny.

Hyprocrisy is the worst problem, perhaps, and those who have made bad decisions have marred the image of our presidency much. However, that does not mean we still have a responsibility to protect others abroad, and protect our own interests--even if that is oil, or resources. I mean, our society runs on our resources, were they cut, we would collapse, so it is vital. I think Bush realized this when he said "we are addicted to oil"...because we depend upon nations we otherwise wouldnt need to because of it--leading to inevitable conflict with those that dont agree with us.

I'll have to hold my applause to your little speech, I'm afraid.

Depsite what you say, not supporting thugs, terrorists and coups is not necessarily "doing nothing in every situation." For example, I think political asylum is a perfectly valid concept. But, if I remember correctly, the US actually treats such people rather badly, and even charges fees for political asylum. It's just another example of us not being heroes, but sons of bitches.

Again, stop overgeneralizing.

Not only has this war been considered almost pointless, except for profits inside our militarized global economy, but it's left the country largely destroyed and the people living in even greater fear than they had been before, but the economic cost has been great for Iraqis, as well as for us. And much of Iraq, like much of the United States, is in the private domain of a handful of self-proclaimed experts in the name of "government by the people." This is nothing but one of the greatest, authentic conspiracies of all time.

Well, I respectfully disagree with every statement there. The reward is not always present right away. Making Iraq a freer place is a reward enough...and in the future, it will be more rewarding. The conspiracy is very flawed.

Blowing up someone's house is a little different from "sticking our nose into someone else's door," and I don't think too many Iraqis actually wanted their country to be invaded, their infrastructure destroyed, and everything to be de-stabilized. Asking to be invaded is pretty much like asking for a death warrant. In fact, I'd say that any Iraqis who wanted something like this to happen would have to have been incredibly stupid, incredibly twisted, or both. Grandpa h.

1. Most Iraqis were happy to be invaded--in reality, liberated. Support only waned when the insurgency took root and rival factions began fighting.... once things get tough, people quickly stop supporting them, but that is when it is most important to hold out.
2.We also did not want to destroy their infrastructure and be destabilized. We actually destroyed very little infrastructure comparatively to most invasions...much of it was destroyed later by insurgents. The entire war was meant to be quick--minimize deaths on all side, minimize infra. damage, minimize friendly casualties. It worked well, but insurgents caused a lot of mayhem later on.
3. I think you make the assumption that Iraqis were fine living under Saddam, many were not.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I dont know where the last part came into this, but that is true. They probably had no link to 9.11, although it is possible they knew something was going to happen (which Saddam would have gladly supported). About them being a significant threat--they may not be a threat ot the mainland, but they are a threat to US civilians and soldiers abroad, on their various duties in the middle east. They were also a threat because of the power they weilded with their oil. More importantly, the were a threat to their own people and the other Arab countries and US allies in the region. A war does not have to be fought purely in self-defense to be legit, considering isolationism is what usually brings nations into war anyways.

I mentioned it because it's relevant. It's not like I started talking about the Clash or the Ramones.

Anyway, I don't see any evidence that Saddam "knew it was coming" anymore than anyone else. But really, there is more evidence that the citizens of the US were a bigger threat to Iraqis, given what their tax dollars have supported over there -- to put it oh so gently. The idea that wars needn't be defensive has been around for centuries, and anyone with a brain knows what it's really about. And isolation is isolation. At most it can allow for a Civil War. But when countries start attacking others, it is not isolationism.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I think a better generalization that encompasses all people is this: people tend to care more about people like themselves. However, to make sweeping generalizations is always unfair, so I judge every individual by what they do.

In general, I think they're saying we should cater to their interests, even at the expense of our own, which is syetematic inequality. In this discussion, its more fitting to judge every institution by what it does. Taken as a whole, I do not think that state-capitalist and militarist institutions are a sterling example of "being fair to individuals."

Quote by: The Black Ghost That is not true at all. They have all the facts they need, more than we will ever hear. Many presidents have strong principles, maybe there have been examples of those who were not so good, but I think that comes down to "everyone is human". I would say that American presidents have more principle than most other nations.

I should have made myself clearer: They use policies to destroy human lives, and related facts with them. They are too big to let uncomfortable truths get in their way. They learn things simply to control and neutralize them. They acknowledge facts and use rhetoric in order to feel the public. That's what I was meaning to say. For example, Netanyahu once said: "...obviously if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants
open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more
possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians" -- yet he most certainly wants more Israeli settlements. That's how nationalism works.
PM Netanyahu conference call to Conference of Presidents 21-Jul-2009

Largely because of such tactics, we end up with results like the following:
"Sixty-four percent (64%) view the United States as a positive role model for
human rights. The same percentage of voters say the world would be a better
place if other nations followed our example. Earlier surveys have found that
roughly six-out-of-ten voters believe that American society is generally
fair and decent."
Most Americans Proud of U.S. History, Say Other Nations Should Follow America’s Lead - Rasmussen Reports™

Quote by: The Black Ghost That is the pacifist do-nothing way. We must avoid civilian casualties, but we also must do what must be done to help those people, and in turn, help ourselves. War is often branded as "evil" generally. However, is it more evil to kill to stop killings, or sit and watch others be killed and do nothing? Under what circumstances do you think war is neccesary--only in direct defense?

First of all, minding one's own business is not necessary "pacifist." Neither do pacifists usually recommend we "do nothing." They may just simply realize there are other options. Some may have said, for example, that we should have let the inspection process continue to better prove that Saddam had nothing. That's not "doing nothing," in any case. Plenty of people -- pacifist and otherwise -- knew the immense risks America was taking. But a significant number of others -- mostly very badly informed folks -- felt that we were there fighting those that struck us on 9-11. Given that fact, it's no mystery why Thomas Jefferson once said, "People who don¹t read newspapers are better off than those who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed."

And, as Tamim Ansary noted, "When people speak of 'having the belly to do what needs to be
done' they're thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any
moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull
our heads out of the sand."
Bomb Afghanistan to Stone Age? It's Been Done

Anybody could see that as the underlying message and liken it to the mentality of common criminals, which would be very accurate. Of course, the killings of common criminals tend to be on a far more limited scale. The war on Iraq is not so limited. It's part of a growing and very real effort at world domination. Retaliation is practically inevitable, and not just from Muslims.

Quote by: The Black Ghost What he meant was, in the event of war, we will do everything in our power to prevent civilian deaths and protect the populace of Iraq. This was done, whether or not you are willing to accept it. There have been mistakes, errors, and even individual atrocities by soldiers who were acting against orders... but they are hardly preventable occurances--people will make some mistakes, circumstances will change, and some people will act like criminals in any country they go to.

What he meant was America will determine the final fate of Iraq, as it has been trying to do for years, with ongoing support by Britain. Again, if we were really concerned about preventing Iraqis as victims of certain terrorist attacks, we wouldn't have started this war; knowing the likely dangers not only of our aistrikes and such, but also of retaliatory and ethno-religious violence within Iraq and beyond its official borders. This is proven by recent US-Iraq history. You, and others like you, are mostly trying to save face with some type of "victory" explanation, and various excuses. Implied, for example, is that soldiers can only act terribly if it is "against orders," or if it is "a mistake." But this is not true.

As Vets' Call to Conscience stated:
"No soldier can know beforehand when enough will be enough,
when she or he must dissent from what is clearly wrong. When that time
comes, she may lay her life down against war; or he may, like Hugh
Thompson, the U.S. hero of the My Lai massacre, act to save lives. As
veterans we are laying out our experience on these questions."
Indymedia UK - Who is Putting the Troops in Harms Way?

If "some people will act like criminals in any country they go to," that's all the more reason to not arm them and send them abroad.