Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

damnrad · Feb 19, 2004, 08:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,)
Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Who did he save? How many? We don't know. We DO know that most of the people that Saddam killed lost their lives while Saddam was a buddy of the U.S., and the U.S. looked the other way. Some he killed later, and the U.S. decried it, but did nothing. For example, the U.S. urged the Kurds and the Shia to oust Saddam after the Gulf War, but when they rose up against him and were slaughtered, the U.S. did nothing. The Kurds and the Shia remember that as a great betrayal by the U.S. -- by papa Bush's government. So, some people would have been killed after March 2003; and we saved them? Maybe. Or maybe they were killed anyway, in our 'shock and awe' bombing campaign, in the invasion, or in the bloody aftermath of the invasion. My feeling is that many more will perish in horrible ways as a consequence of the invasion than would have under Saddam; but there is no way to know.

But, again, why did Dubya invade? Was it to save lives of Iraqis? Was it to install democracy? Was it for nation building? All of those had been denied by Dubya as a reason to send troops to a country. What did Dubya actually claim the reason was for the invasion? Here it is, on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html. The reason Dubya GAVE for the invasion was because of a claimed imminent threat to the world of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, some of them claimed to be possessed in great quantities, and some claimed to be possessed as 'almost 30,000 munitions.' There it STILL is, claimed on the WH website, even though it has been demonstrated to be untrue -- and even though many U.S. intelligence officials, the UN and its inspectors who had been in Iraq, and most of the world never believed it. Dubya sent the U.S. to war on the basis of what was untrue, what many of us believed to be untrue at the time, and that the Bushistas may have known was untrue -- reasons not supported by intelligence available then.

Now, the attempt is to misdirect our attention from the untruths used to support the invasion, for what I believe to have been lies to support the invasion, by digging up some post-hoc rationale for why the invasion was a good thing. The problem with that is that the post hoc rationalizations don't hold water either: we don't know that the invasion saved more lives than it took; we don't know what will become of Iraq, whether or not it will be better off than under Saddam; we don't know when the U.S. will actually be able to pull troops out without precipitating an outcome that the U.S. would consider worse than Saddam (whether or not Iraqis thought it was better); our occupation is not making things better, rather making them worse; and the invasion and the following occupation have blackened the U.S.' reputation, prestige, and apparent trustworthiness in much of the world. There is no good face to put on Dubya's Iraqi quagmire.

Stigmata66 · Feb 19, 2004, 09:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Who did he save? How many? We don't know. We DO know that most of the people that Saddam killed lost their lives while Saddam was a buddy of the U.S., and the U.S. looked the other way.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Ok, this may be true but who was President when this happened? Not GW Bush...

rmnunez · Feb 20, 2004, 11:18 pm

I don't think alleged past US complicity with Saddam (if shown) would vitiate the strength of the argument he should be removed for being a genocide. But I don't think he was removed for being a genocide, or even out of humanitarian concerns more generally.

cepjr61 · Feb 22, 2004, 10:21 pm

Now ya'll see exactly why dubya didn't want anything to do with the ICC. Iraq was never in violation of UN resolution 1441, and dubya had this administration use whatever info was handy, even to using that fake dossier that colin powell carried to the UN, which was nothing more than some student's synopsis of an MI6 mock finding. This began the egg spreading all over the face of america. The usa now has a 7 trillion dollar trade deficit, a mutibillion dollar national debt, the Iraq war debt, and many other supposed monies owed to nations that bowed to our interests, and who gets to pay for it all??? Our kids and grandkids! Another lie dubya has told (but hey, what's new there) is that our economy is on the rebound, well, it sure is, our economy is outsourcing to countries like India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudia Arabia. Hmmm, american jobs for the use of a military base, good trade wasn't it?

Feb 19, 2004, 08:50 pm	#81 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,) Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who did he save? How many? We don't know. We DO know that most of the people that Saddam killed lost their lives while Saddam was a buddy of the U.S., and the U.S. looked the other way. Some he killed later, and the U.S. decried it, but did nothing. For example, the U.S. urged the Kurds and the Shia to oust Saddam after the Gulf War, but when they rose up against him and were slaughtered, the U.S. did nothing. The Kurds and the Shia remember that as a great betrayal by the U.S. -- by papa Bush's government. So, some people would have been killed after March 2003; and we saved them? Maybe. Or maybe they were killed anyway, in our 'shock and awe' bombing campaign, in the invasion, or in the bloody aftermath of the invasion. My feeling is that many more will perish in horrible ways as a consequence of the invasion than would have under Saddam; but there is no way to know. But, again, why did Dubya invade? Was it to save lives of Iraqis? Was it to install democracy? Was it for nation building? All of those had been denied by Dubya as a reason to send troops to a country. What did Dubya actually claim the reason was for the invasion? Here it is, on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html. The reason Dubya GAVE for the invasion was because of a claimed imminent threat to the world of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, some of them claimed to be possessed in great quantities, and some claimed to be possessed as 'almost 30,000 munitions.' There it STILL is, claimed on the WH website, even though it has been demonstrated to be untrue -- and even though many U.S. intelligence officials, the UN and its inspectors who had been in Iraq, and most of the world never believed it. Dubya sent the U.S. to war on the basis of what was untrue, what many of us believed to be untrue at the time, and that the Bushistas may have known was untrue -- reasons not supported by intelligence available then. Now, the attempt is to misdirect our attention from the untruths used to support the invasion, for what I believe to have been lies to support the invasion, by digging up some post-hoc rationale for why the invasion was a good thing. The problem with that is that the post hoc rationalizations don't hold water either: we don't know that the invasion saved more lives than it took; we don't know what will become of Iraq, whether or not it will be better off than under Saddam; we don't know when the U.S. will actually be able to pull troops out without precipitating an outcome that the U.S. would consider worse than Saddam (whether or not Iraqis thought it was better); our occupation is not making things better, rather making them worse; and the invasion and the following occupation have blackened the U.S.' reputation, prestige, and apparent trustworthiness in much of the world. There is no good face to put on Dubya's Iraqi quagmire.

Feb 19, 2004, 09:42 pm	#82 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Who did he save? How many? We don't know. We DO know that most of the people that Saddam killed lost their lives while Saddam was a buddy of the U.S., and the U.S. looked the other way.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok, this may be true but who was President when this happened? Not GW Bush... Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 20, 2004, 11:18 pm	#83 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I don't think alleged past US complicity with Saddam (if shown) would vitiate the strength of the argument he should be removed for being a genocide. But I don't think he was removed for being a genocide, or even out of humanitarian concerns more generally. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 22, 2004, 10:21 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
cepjr61 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	Now ya'll see exactly why dubya didn't want anything to do with the ICC. Iraq was never in violation of UN resolution 1441, and dubya had this administration use whatever info was handy, even to using that fake dossier that colin powell carried to the UN, which was nothing more than some student's synopsis of an MI6 mock finding. This began the egg spreading all over the face of america. The usa now has a 7 trillion dollar trade deficit, a mutibillion dollar national debt, the Iraq war debt, and many other supposed monies owed to nations that bowed to our interests, and who gets to pay for it all??? Our kids and grandkids! Another lie dubya has told (but hey, what's new there) is that our economy is on the rebound, well, it sure is, our economy is outsourcing to countries like India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudia Arabia. Hmmm, american jobs for the use of a military base, good trade wasn't it?