Little Green Footballs

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

An open question

As we've been having some lively debate on LGF Watch lately here's an open question (or two) for you folks:

What was the original objective of the Iraq war? And how does it fit into the wider War on Terror?

Let's go back to basics before we argue outcomes, eh?

34 comments:

The Sphinx said...

The foremost proclaimed objective was to topple Saddam out of fear that he was stocking up on WMDs and aiding and arming terrorists.

Turns out he wasn't..

ChenZhen said...

From my LGF memoirs...

I think that LGF was like a lot of war blogs in that the support for the war from the beginning stemmed not from the idea that Saddam posed a tactical threat to the US or that the Iraqi people deserve to be liberated. The underlying justification was much less cerebral, i.e. we were attacked on 9/11 by Arabs, and the appropriate response was to kick some Arab ass. Or, according to Mr. Johnson:

In the Arab/Islamic shame-honor mindset, this is interpreted as weakness — and it was. It was that perceived weakness that was directly responsible for 9/11. The only way to rectify this is to demonstrate superior force; and that’s what President Bush did after 9/11, smashing the Taliban and dethroning Saddam Hussein.

Alexis said...

It's about liberating Najaf, which is the seat of one of the most important theological seminaries in Islam. Given how Wahhabi cash has subverted al-Azhar and the Iranian government's power over Qom's seminaries, there were those who sought to promote the establishment of a sacred space where Muslim (or at least Shi'ite Muslim) theologians could express themselves freely.

Understood this way, the war has not been a complete success, but it is clearly not a failure either.

X said...

Come on Tex, give us your view.

Anonymous said...

As an Iraqi, I support the war , I supported removal of the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein. Saddam already led Iraq to full destruction and he and his regime responsible for the war and such destruction. I lived under his dictatorship and I know what it feels like.

I used to warry from Americans, but on April 9, 2003 , when I saw the dictator statue fall, and Americans troops entered our street, so I knew Saddam is gone and gone forever, I was very happy, happy tears were in my eyes, the most beautiful moments in my life, as I knew I ll be free finally, can talk, and finally there is hope of change. I didn't exaggerate, and this was not just me, I went out in the streets and there were many people had the same feelings.

A lot of terrible things happened afterward, but I know it is not America's fault, although US admin made many mistakes, but I know and everybody know that our enemy is the same one who attacked the US on 9/11. We as people want to live normal life in a free democratic country, Islamists do not want that. Baathists and Arab nationalists do not want that.

Like the Sphinx, they accuse US of stealing oil. what a stupid joke, Arab nationalist and Islamists are the ones who want to steal Iraq wealth, Jordan was getting half of Iraq oil for free in exchange for open border with Iraq, Palestinians were receiving lots of money and special services, Egyptians given priority over Iraqis to get jobs in 1980s war, then finally Saddam bit them when they started to complain for killing some of the Egyptian workers.

Saddam supported terror groups, we have the Sphinx and LGFW claiming otherwise, well Saddam did support terror groups, he supported Palestinian terror groups, he supported Mujahidy Khalq, he himself practiced terror, assasinations in Europe, Syria, explosions. I don't have a doubt that Saddam had in fact ties to AQ terrorists, though he was a secular in a sense.

I think the only people who has say about US and allies troops in Iraq are people of Iraq and people of the countries who has troops. Egyptians, terrorists, palestinians, Germans stay away if you don't like.

Specially "arab brothers" who support terror and killing of Iraqis in one hand, and complaining about the "horrors" of US on another. go to hell.

It is interesting to see some anti-war claiming Iraqis do not want US troops, but the government of Iraq democratically elected insist on their presence, beside millions of Iraqis who voted and now the Sunni awakening movement beside Kurds.

Anonymous said...

1. The goal being to put a stop to state sponsored terrorism, Iraq's government has the biggest ary in the Middle East, was sponsoring terrorism by paying $25,000, then $30,000 for each suicide bomb attack on Israel, etc.
2. All major intelligence agencise concurred that Saddam had WMD's. Past history showed he had them at more thn one point. While he may have detroyed them before the war,
this was unknown.
3. Saddam was murdering 5,000 of his own people per month, had gassed the Kurds and in the past had tried to obtain nuclear weapons.
6. Saddam violated UN sanctions, stole from his own people and was starving them as he built palaces.
7. Saddam's forces fired on US forces in the no fly zones set up by the UN after Gulf war One.
8. Many in the Ba'ath Party were also part of al Qaeda.
These were justifiable reaons to go to war and removing Saddam was a good deed. So-called human rights actvists should certainly have taken comfort in the removal of Saddam and the Ba'athists.

Red Tulips said...

What is the point of this?

I don't know the original reason for the war and did not support it at the time. But we are there now and fighting Al Queda in Iraq/Mahdi Army/Revolutionary Guard/Sadr Brigades/Hizballah in Iraq/etc. Moreover, Saddam was flat out evil and supporting terror (lies to say otherwise; the Ba'ath party itself has Nazi origins, he met with Zarqawi, he sent $25,000 per family of suicide bombers in Israel, and he was a rallying figure head for Islamists around the world). So while I think it might not have been the wisest move to go in at first, it was not necessarily the worst idea. And anyway, it is nonsense to leave now, as we are slowly killing the jihadists in Iraq.

Whether the war was justified to begin with has no bearing on whether we should stay there now. Your question is irrelevant.

I now will ask *you* a question.

Do you believe it a wise idea to leave American soldiuers stranded in Iraq? Obama voted against funding the US army. Do you believe it a wise idea to leave Iraqis vulnerable to jihadists? Obama believes that as well.

Do you agree with Obama's Muslimophobia?

Sura 109 said...

Do you believe it a wise idea to leave American soldiuers [sic] stranded in Iraq?

No. We should get them out as soon as possible.

Do you agree with Obama's Muslimophobia?

Hey, waitafugginminute, I thought B. Hussein Osama was a crypto-Muslim fifth columnist who Hates America® and wants to sell us out to The Terrorists®.

The Anti-Wahhabi said...

"Saddam supported terror groups, we have the Sphinx and LGFW claiming otherwise"

Because they are right, and you are WRONG.

"well Saddam did support terror groups"

So did a lot of other countries, including the U.S. Contras ring a bell? The Afghan mujahideen during the 80's?

"he supported Palestinian terror groups"

Israel helped create Hamas in the 80s as a proper counterweight to the PLO. No comment about that?

"he supported Mujahidy Khalq"

Yet many US officials have favored arming the MeK as a counterweight to Iran.

Former Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo referred to them as "freedom fighters". What do you say about that?

"he himself practiced terror, assasinations in Europe, Syria, explosions."

And what about the Chilean junta targeting dissidents in the U.S. during the 70's?

"I don't have a doubt that Saddam had in fact ties to AQ terrorists, though he was a secular in a sense."

Christ, you really have drank the Kool-Aid. It must be a crime against humanity to be this dumb, it's official.

God Bless Iraq & US said...

To The Anti-Wahhabi , all what you said is pointless and I don't care about. as an Iraqi, I don't want Iraq to support Palestinian terror groups, or invade other countries or start senseless wars, and I don't want dictators rule my country.

I support US troops in Iraq. Get it? It is my country and I think it is best for my country, and I know better than any non-Iraqi what's best for my own. and as I said earlier, only Iraqis and Americans can decide US troops presence in Iraq, not the anti-wahhabi, not the Egyptian, not the Saudi. so unless you are an American, you have no decision making right about that. I have, I have my vote in Iraqi elections, and my opinions are more valuable, as I'm a citizen of Iraq.

Saddam was terrorist in chief, enough he used chemical weapons against his own people that nobody did before like him, he mass murdered many people, if you don't think that's terror , go learn something then. US never did that to their own people, despite racism, locking down the Japanese..etc US never did like what Saddam did. beside Saddam brough up the war by his adventures in Kuwait and defying the UN and suppressing people.

Again, we IRAQIS support the toppling of Saddam Hussein, many of you whiny anti-iraq war were expecting massive violence in revenge of Saddam execution. you were all wrong, nothing happen more than the usual, because even Iraqi terrorists are not fighting for Saddam.

Today the situation is improved, and if US stays more but changing the role to support Iraqi troops and democracy instead of carrying out the missions themselves, things will become better for US and Iraq.

A democratic Iraq allied with the US will server a big blow to radicals, Iranian threat and anti-west Arabs. Strong Iraq is very important so that another 9/11 does not happen and that US troops will not be needed to interfere in future wars in ME.

Unstable iraq threatens oil market, threaten Israel and will drag US forces into a bigger war.

Stable Iraq will help global economy, reduce oil prices and stablize the region.

Everything come at cost, but US up to now didn't lose what they lost in the beginning of Vietnam war. From US perspective, this is not about Iraq, this is about US, about world peace and preventing a bigger war.

Those who think Saddam was not that bad, or was not that threat, are idiots for the following
1-Saddam started the gulf war, and he was very close to making a nuclear bomb.

2-Saddam produced massive chemical weapons and biological weaspons , and he used them again civilians in Iran and Iraqi Kurds. These weapons were destroyed in a twisted way and UN evading way that left no trust in his regime. Even after destruction, Iraq had the capability to reproduce WMD again, and the expertise to teach other terror harboring states.

3-Saddam does not learn his lessons, after 1991 gulf war, he tried to assasinate George H. Bush in Kuwait.

4-Iraq was under sanctions and democrat Admin in US did not remove Saddam and did not lift the sanctions, so until when you expected Iraqi people to suffer while accomodating the dictator?

I don't care now US did what you call "terror" , terrorism is bad no matter who does, but obviously I'd rather live under US "terror" than under Saddam terror. at least you can talk to sane Americans, you can't talk to sane Saddam Baathist, because there weren't any.

God Bless Iraq & US said...

To The Anti-Wahhabi,

To those who think Turkey has no right to act upon this menace, all I have to say is: remember Pancho Villa and his cross-border raid in New Mexico in 1916?

Iraqi hypocrisy

You are such a hypocrat , and you argu against the Iraq war. you are ignorant and an Iraqi hater.

if you support Turkey incursion in Iraq to destroy PKK, why not support US efforts to destroy Al-Qaeda?

second, Iraqi government supports eliminating PKK from northern Iraq and many times Iraqi officials set deals with Turkey, in fact even the incursion probably was in coordination with the Iraqi government, their public speechs is not more than advertisement. Some Kurds only sympathise with PKK, not all of them. So just know your facts first, before you sound ignorant useless racist.

Turkey never had restrain against threatening by war to stop terrorists, before they mass troops on Syria, and they attacked northern Iraq several times, but usually with Iraqi coordination even at time of your beloved lord Saddam Hussein .

I suggest you to remove the "anti-wahhabi", it is just sound idiotic considering your extreme opinions, so you are not too extreme, then what? you can change it to "semi-wahhabi"

dawud said...

Red Tulips and 'anonymous': I don't miss Saddam, and have no qualms about saying his removal from power was no loss to humanity; but the question is not about invading a country and removing a dictator, both of which were feasible to the US military, but about dealing with the consequences and staying in the country while it's been made quite clear that alQ and company came to Iraq precisely because of the security vacuum the US created.

Please, by all means read the Pentagon's report on the matter:
http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-13-voa52.cfm

and then try and persuade me that there were links to alQ that the Pentagon wasn't and isn't aware of.

As for the Mujahideen-i-Khalq, even Daniel Pipes (a Bush appointee [?!?] to the US Institute for Peace) supports them against Iran... and you LGF-wingnuts are crazy about Daniel Pipes, so please go argue that point with him, I'd be happy to see you guys slaver over how evil Pipes is for supporting terrorists.

As a point of fact, I'd like to argue with the 'anti-Wahabi' that Israel didn't *create* Hamas, but rather encouraged the conditions that created Hamas, by building mosques and allowing Islamic Brotherhood cells to form, by spying on and encouraging informants, by bombing and humiliating the Palestinians - Hamas has done evil by suicide bombings and attacks on innocents, but their acts can stand on their own and they can bear their own responsibility for their own evil actions, just as Israel can for its' own actions.

The Sphinx said...

To "God bless Iraq & US", in your own language:

Eish ra2yak fi 7arakit alwilayat almotta7ida 3endama qamou bi izalit el jeish wel shorta el 3eraqeyya fi awwil ayyam el e7tilal, wa bizalik dammarou jamee3 alforas li anfosihim lil ta7akkom 3al mawqif fi Baghdad.

Wa keif yakoon ra2sak marfoo3an wa antom 3aysheen ta7t e7tilal min qowwat mab3outha min siyasiyyen kazabou 3ala sha3bihim we sho3oob el 3alam wa qatalat mi2at al 2alaf min sokkanakom? Wa hal tara zanban fi man yoqawim al qowwat alaty dammarat masakinahom wa taradathom min boyoutihim? Iqra fi sourit al ma2ida, 2aya 8 we 9.

Kollina karheen Saddam, we ma nara ayy 7'eir fi 3asroh, innama inta istabdalt al sayyi2 bil aswa2 we kont radiyan.

So2al a7'eer, eish ra2yak fil ta3leeqat ta7t ism 'woroud 7amra2' 3endama taqoul 3alaman yoqawim al e7tilal wa zolmohom tigah el sha3b el 3eraqy annoh mo3ady wa kareh lil muslimeen wa deenohom? Hal anta mowafiq ma3ha fi haza el ra2y?

Bless Iraq & US said...

To The Sphinx:

I know you want to make sure if I speak Arabic, heh, old but you have right as some people lies a lot, here we go, please write in Arabic script if you are going to write in Arabic, I'm not used to Latinized Arabic.

"Eish ra2yak fi 7arakit alwilayat almotta7ida 3endama qamou bi izalit el jeish wel shorta el 3eraqeyya fi awwil ayyam el e7tilal, wa bizalik dammarou jamee3 alforas li anfosihim lil ta7akkom 3al mawqif fi Baghdad."

Translation of The sphinx:
"What's your opinion about that the US dissolved the Iraqi military and police in the first days of invasion. and by that, they destroyed all the chances for them to control the situation in Baghdad"

هذا خطأ من قبل الولايات المتحدة ، لكن مفهوم لان الشرطة والجيش كانت فيها عناصر فاسدة وموالية للحكومة. الفساد الاداري في العراق من اكبر المشاكل ، لكن مع ذلك هذا خطأ ستراتيجي ولا يمكن ان نحكم على الولايات المتحدة او ان نعمل خطأ اكبر وهو انسحاب امريكا وضياع العراق بايدي الارهابيين.

Translation of me: "That's a mistake, but it is also known that the Iraqi police and military were very corrupt and had eliminates that were loyal to Saddam Hussein not Iraq, this is stratgeic error, but can be understood.and does not justify judging the US efforts in contrast if the US leave Iraq to the terrorists"

"Wa keif yakoon ra2sak marfoo3an wa antom 3aysheen ta7t e7tilal min qowwat mab3outha min siyasiyyen kazabou 3ala sha3bihim we sho3oob el 3alam wa qatalat mi2at al 2alaf min sokkanakom? Wa hal tara zanban fi man yoqawim al qowwat alaty dammarat masakinahom wa taradathom min boyoutihim? Iqra fi sourit al ma2ida, 2aya 8 we 9."

Translation of the Sphinx: "And How you can "raise your head" (idiom: proud) when your country is under occupation of forces sent by rulers who lied to their people and to the world and killed hundred of thousands of people from your own citizens and do you see any guilt on the side of those who resist these forces that destoyed their homes and forced out of their homes, read sura Al-Maeda aya 8 and 9 "

كيف تريد ان يكون رأسي مرفوع مثلا تحت حكم دكتاتوري قمعي يهين الناس ويستعبدهم؟ في ايام صدام جلاوزة النظام لا يبالون بضرب الناس واهانتهم بدون سبب ، اضافة الى الاهوال الحقيقية من تعذيب ، تشريد ، هدم المنازل وهدم المساجد ، اغتصاب النساء ، او ابنه الذي كان يتحرش بالنساء. بالنسبة لامريكا فهي ليست اول احتلال، العراق نشأ عقب احتلال ، والعراق ومصر كانوا تحت الاحتلال التركي لاربع قرون، لا اقول اني اريد احتلال ، لكن هو ليس ذلة اذا نحن نرفض فكرة الاحتلال بلا سبب ، لكن نقبل مساعدة امريكا الى ان تستطيع دولتنا الاعتمال على نفسها بعد الدمار الذي سببه صدام.

Translation of me: "And how do you think I would raise my head (idiom: proud) under a vicious dictator, that insults people and enslave them? at that time Saddam's regime didn't care about beating up people and insulting them without any reason, that is beside the horrors of torture, mass murder, raping, and his son that was hanging out raping girls . US occupation wasn't the first, Iraq established after/by occupation, Iraq and Egypt both were under Turkish occupation for 4 centuries, I'm not saying I accept the idea of occupation without reason, but US occupation is not an insult, We accept US help to support our country until our government and army can lead itself. "
[addition not in Arabic: How come you don't see anything wrong in the terrorists you call them resistant?? they are killing Iraqis and destablizing the country, in fact if they nevr attack, US would have no reason to keep large forces. Beside, US is not responsible for killing of hundred of thousands as you claim, check the news even from MSM and you ll see how many terrorists killed compared to US, US does not target civilians in almost all the cases, Terrorists target civilians, each attack was claiming hundred of people, those are savage terrorists not resistant.]

"Kollina karheen Saddam, we ma nara ayy 7'eir fi 3asroh, innama inta istabdalt al sayyi2 bil aswa2 we kont radiyan."

Translation of the Sphinx: "We all hate Saddam, and we don't see anything good in his era, but you replace the bad with the worse and you are satisfied with that."

انت كاره صدام ، لكن انت عشت كل فترة صدام، وانا اقول لك كحال اكثر من ثمانين بالمئة من الشعب العراقي ، الحال ايام صدام اسوء من الحال بعد الاحتلال، وانا عشت فترة انعدام القانون بعد الاحتلال. واذا انت تعرف احنا راضيين ممكن اتفكر لماذا راضيين؟ لان هناك سبب

Translation of me: "You hate Saddam, but I lived all Saddam era under his regime, and I tell you like any iraqi out of more than 80% of Iraqis, the situation now is better than under Saddam Hussein, and I lived the lawless era after 2003 , and if you think we are happy with that, why don't you think why?"


[addition not in Arabic: the situation under Saddam was getting worse and never getting better, some people talk about good times in 1980s, but that's when he came to the rule, it was the good work of his predecessors.]

"So2al a7'eer, eish ra2yak fil ta3leeqat ta7t ism 'woroud 7amra2' 3endama taqoul 3alaman yoqawim al e7tilal wa zolmohom tigah el sha3b el 3eraqy annoh mo3ady wa kareh lil muslimeen wa deenohom? Hal anta mowafiq ma3ha fi haza el ra2y?"

Can you clarify that paragraph? Please write in English or Arabic script, I didn't understand if it meant in the quote that the terrorists which called Resistants in your quote are haters of Islam and Muslims, or is it saying Iraqis haters of Islam or Muslims or Americans?

هل ممكن ان تصيغ سؤالك بشكل افضل ورجاءا اما بالانكليزي او بالخط العربي، لاني لم افهم قصد الرأي هل يقول ان الارهابيين معادين للاسلام والمسلمين او العراقيين ام الامريكان؟

المرة القادمة ارجو ان تكتب الانكليزي حتى الجميع يقرأ ما تكتب. لكن انت حر


Next time please write in English so others can read, but I have no problem with Arabic in Arabic script,

X said...

I'd like to make one specific observation here: it's interesting how the link being made between 9/11 and the Iraq war is an indirect one, i.e. Saddam was somehow involved in supporting the people who carried out attacks like 9/11 and the insurgents in Iraq somehow overlap with those planning further terror attacks against the West.

But are these amorphous and tenuous links really enough to justify a war that has cost so much in terms of lives, resources and goodwill? Hasn't America opened up a new chasm between itself and _ if not the whole world _ the Arab world?

If the justification for overthrowing the Taliban and "liberating" the Afghan people was clear, even though to this day it hasn't been achieved, how much less clear was the case for going to war in Iraq? And how much did the Bush family grudge against Saddam and America's coveting of Iraq's oil supplies and further military budgets have to do with the decision, which was sold to us on the outright lie that Iraq had WMD?

Remember, the main architect of 9/11 is still fugitive. The number of jihadis is likely to have gone up, rather than down as a consequence of the campaign in Iraq. America has become safer at the expense of its openness, and Iraq can by no measure be described as a stable, safe, prosperous country despite the billions poured into reconstruction. Millions of Iraqis would not be seeking refuge abroad if their country was safe enough to return to, and what was once one of the most advanced nations in the Arab world would not these days lack doctors, hospitals and nurses.

If the neocons were able to invoke 9/11 at every opportunity to justify their actions then surely we can do the same now to hold them to their claims and promises.

Or not?

The Anti-Wahhabi said...

if you support Turkey incursion in Iraq to destroy PKK, why not support US efforts to destroy Al-Qaeda?

What makes you think I don't? Jumping to conclusions now?

Contrary to your ill-guided belief, I do support US efforts to destroy al-Qaeda, hence why I supported the action against Afghanistan 100%. I did not support the war in Iraq, however, since Iraq was not funding al-Qaeda. If you're going to mention Ansar al Islam then you must mention that they were thriving in the northern No-Fly Zone, outside of Saddam's control.

The Anti-Wahhabi said...

To The Anti-Wahhabi , all what you said is pointless and I don't care about. as an Iraqi, I don't want Iraq to support Palestinian terror groups, or invade other countries or start senseless wars, and I don't want dictators rule my country.

Yet you'd prefer to have a foreign power occupy your land.

Ever forgot how America came to being? It might help for you to know.

"I support US troops in Iraq. Get it?"


"It is my country and I think it is best for my country"

Yet 70% of your countrymen disagree with you, from various polls that asked the Iraqis themselves.

"and I know better than any non-Iraqi what's best for my own."

Sure you do. You know better than the experts who actually know Iraq better than someone who bends over for neocons. Yeah I get it.

That's like saying since I'm American I know America better than anyone else. Pure hogwash.

"and as I said earlier, only Iraqis and Americans can decide US troops presence in Iraq, not the anti-wahhabi, not the Egyptian, not the Saudi. so unless you are an American, you have no decision making right about that."

Last I checked, it is the Iraqis themselves who want the troops out. Not you or us.

"I have, I have my vote in Iraqi elections, and my opinions are more valuable, as I'm a citizen of Iraq."

So why aren't you living over there? Why aren't you more open about your support of the occupation, if indeed this sentiment is shared among a majority?

"Saddam was terrorist in chief, enough he used chemical weapons against his own people that nobody did before like him, he mass murdered many people, if you don't think that's terror , go learn something then."

Ironic that all of those incidents occurred under the watchful eye of the U.S. It's no surprise that Donald Rumsfield himself visited Baghdad in 83 and even shook hands with your dictator, to authorize the shipment of chemical weapons for their own bidding.

How about you go learn something before drinking the Kool Aid?

"US never did that to their own people, despite racism, locking down the Japanese..etc US never did like what Saddam did."

Not to our own people, but we sure had no problem doing it to others.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chile, Greece, Iran, East Timor, former French Indochina, Phillipines, Hawaii before it was forcefully annexed, Grenada, Panama, Argentina, Paraguay, Spain, Portugal, to name a few.

"beside Saddam brough up the war by his adventures in Kuwait and defying the UN and suppressing people."

Many other dictators suppress their own people, why not comment on them?

"Again, we IRAQIS support the toppling of Saddam Hussein"

You only speak for yourself, quit making yourself out to be the voice of the Iraqi people. No one died and made you the spokesman of Iraq.

"many of you whiny anti-iraq war were expecting massive violence in revenge of Saddam execution. you were all wrong, nothing happen more than the usual, because even Iraqi terrorists are not fighting for Saddam."

There is MASSIVE violence going on. Just look at what happened in Karbala recently for proof.

"Today the situation is improved, and if US stays more but changing the role to support Iraqi troops and democracy instead of carrying out the missions themselves, things will become better for US and Iraq."

Things will be better for Iraq when YOUR own people take charge of its own destiny.

"A democratic Iraq allied with the US will server a big blow to radicals, Iranian threat and anti-west Arabs."

lol man you really do have delusions of grandeur.

"Strong Iraq is very important so that another 9/11 does not happen and that US troops will not be needed to interfere in future wars in ME."

Again, where is the correlation between 9/11 and Iraq? Are you too retarded to understand that the terrorists who committed 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan, which is further east of yours? Tool.

"Unstable iraq threatens oil market, threaten Israel and will drag US forces into a bigger war."

Thank you Captain Obvious.

"Stable Iraq will help global economy, reduce oil prices and stablize the region."

It won't reduce oil prices anytime soon darling, nor will it help stabilize the region.

"Everything come at cost, but US up to now didn't lose what they lost in the beginning of Vietnam war. From US perspective, this is not about Iraq, this is about US, about world peace and preventing a bigger war."

If the U.S. cared about world peace, then it would not get tangled in so many countries.

"Those who think Saddam was not that bad, or was not that threat, are idiots for the following"

Bring it, chump.

"1-Saddam started the gulf war, and he was very close to making a nuclear bomb."

Yet Hans Blix stated otherwise. Why do you feel the need to lie straight to us?

"2-Saddam produced massive chemical weapons and biological weaspons , and he used them again civilians in Iran and Iraqi Kurds. These weapons were destroyed in a twisted way and UN evading way that left no trust in his regime. Even after destruction, Iraq had the capability to reproduce WMD again, and the expertise to teach other terror harboring states."

Yawn, you're a one trick pony, aren't you?

"3-Saddam does not learn his lessons, after 1991 gulf war, he tried to assasinate George H. Bush in Kuwait."

Okay, point taken.

"4-Iraq was under sanctions and democrat Admin in US did not remove Saddam and did not lift the sanctions, so until when you expected Iraqi people to suffer while accomodating the dictator?"

Why not try informing your pro-war buddies, who also endorsed the sanctions.

"I don't care now US did what you call "terror" , terrorism is bad no matter who does, but obviously I'd rather live under US "terror" than under Saddam terror. at least you can talk to sane Americans, you can't talk to sane Saddam Baathist, because there weren't any."

It's easy to say that when you're licking the boots of your occupiers, but when you want to dissent and speak out, it's a whole different story.

Just ask the relatives of the 200,000 East Timorese killed under a US-backed despot, and then come back to me.

Red Tulips said...

I have to actually re-copy what I wrote, as no one addressed a single point that I wrote. Not a single one.

What is the point of this?

I don't know the original reason for the war and did not support it at the time. But we are there now and fighting Al Queda in Iraq/Mahdi Army/Revolutionary Guard/Sadr Brigades/Hizballah in Iraq/etc. Moreover, Saddam was flat out evil and supporting terror (lies to say otherwise; the Ba'ath party itself has Nazi origins, he met with Zarqawi, he sent $25,000 per family of suicide bombers in Israel, and he was a rallying figure head for Islamists around the world). So while I think it might not have been the wisest move to go in at first, it was not necessarily the worst idea. And anyway, it is nonsense to leave now, as we are slowly killing the jihadists in Iraq.

Whether the war was justified to begin with has no bearing on whether we should stay there now. Your question is irrelevant.

I now will ask *you* a question.

Do you believe it a wise idea to leave American soldiuers stranded in Iraq? Obama voted against funding the US army. Do you believe it a wise idea to leave Iraqis vulnerable to jihadists? Obama believes that as well.

Do you agree with Obama's Muslimophobia?


A few post-scripts.

If we leave Iraq now, it guarantees we are leaving before Iraq is strong enough on its own to keep out jihadists. It then will be overrun by jihadists, and there will be a massacre of Iraqis. Do you support this? If you do, why are you so Muslimophobic?

If we do not fund the troops already in Iraq, which Obama sought to do (defund troops in Iraq), then they are left vulnerable to jihadists. If you do, then why do you hate our troops? And why do you hate troops supporting the stabilization of a Iraq, as against jihadists? Why are you so Muslimophobic?

What you seem incapable of realizing is that we are currently fighting jihadists in Iraq. Right now, that is what American troops are doing. Do you advocate the war spreading all over the world, and jihadists gaining control of Iraq and using it as a base of operations?

Is this really what you advocate?

There is all this nonsense talk about America "occupying" Iraq. There is no occupation. Please stop lying. There is no occupation of Iraq. American troops are supporting the Iraqi government and Iraqi forces, period. Iraq has its own government that not only is not an "arm" of America, is independently, as against American wishes, negotiating with Iran! A troop presence is not the same as an occupation. If you want to equate the two, then America has been "occupying" Germany since World War II, and "occupying" Japan and South Korea as well.

Stop conflating words. And for the love of G-d, please stop your Muslimophobia against Iraqis!

X said...

RT:

I don't know the original reason for the war and did not support it at the time. But we are there now and fighting Al Queda in Iraq/Mahdi Army/Revolutionary Guard/Sadr Brigades/Hizballah in Iraq/etc.

As you've said before, none of these groups would be in Iraq if it hadn't been for the invasion. Since you claim that it's the insurgents who are killing all the civilians, how do you square their deaths with the fact that their killers wouldn't be roaming Iraq if it hadn't been for Bush's war? Take some time to think about the concept of culpability.

Moreover, Saddam was flat out evil

That may be a comforting meme for you, but it doesn't exactly illuminate the debate.

he met with Zarqawi

He also met with Rumsfeld

he sent $25,000 per family of suicide bombers in Israel

...and the US sends Israel several billion in military aid a year. I'm not equating the two, but you can hardly argue that it's easy to turn the tables on your simplistic dichotomy.

he was a rallying figure head for Islamists around the world

!?!!

Are we still talking about the same Saddam who brutally suppressed the Shia in his country, especially after the Iranian revolution?

So while I think it might not have been the wisest move to go in at first, it was not necessarily the worst idea

No. Nuking Beijing, Moscow and Delhi might have been a worse idea. But it's not far off if your objective is to combat global terrorism. Driving thousands of people to desperation and into the hands of militant groups isn't necessarily the best way of achieving that aim.

And anyway, it is nonsense to leave now, as we are slowly killing the jihadists in Iraq.

For once, I half agree with you. America started it, America should finish it. The question is how, and whether the American people wouldn't prefer to cut their losses in the short term than commit themselves to patching a sinking ship until it floats.

Red Tulips said...

X,

As you've said before, none of these groups would be in Iraq if it hadn't been for the invasion.

Huh? I didn't "say it before," so what is your point?

Since you claim that it's the insurgents who are killing all the civilians, how do you square their deaths with the fact that their killers wouldn't be roaming Iraq if it hadn't been for Bush's war? Take some time to think about the concept of culpability.

Nice PC word of "insurgents." The fact is, we actually are fighting the very terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11. There really is Al Queda in Iraq. I do not know if it was known ahead of time that Iraq would serve as a "magnet" for terrorists around the world, but in any case, it is. And these terrorists are doing the killing, and would exist whether or not we are in Iraq. Last I checked, 9/11 happened prior to Iraq. The USS Cole happened prior to Iraq. The assassination of Sadat happened prior to Iraq. The bombing of the US embassy in Kenya happened prior to Iraq. I could go on. 9/11 was not isolated. We are fighting terrorists that would exist whether or not we are in Iraq, but they happened to be drawn in Iraq. So what exactly is your point? In a sense, it is more efficient to fight them in one spot, rather than spread all over the world. We did not ask terrorists to fight in Iraq, they chose to on their own.

Moreover, Saddam was flat out evil

That may be a comforting meme for you, but it doesn't exactly illuminate the debate.


Yes, it does. Saddam was Nazi linked and was a rallying figure head of the Islamic supremacist world.

he met with Zarqawi

He also met with Rumsfeld


What is your point re: Rumsfeld? He met with him in 1983, prior to revealing himself as the tyrant he was. Saddam met with Zarqawi to support terror. Are you implying Rumsfeld somehow advocated Saddam's terror campaign? Get real.

he sent $25,000 per family of suicide bombers in Israel

...and the US sends Israel several billion in military aid a year. I'm not equating the two, but you can hardly argue that it's easy to turn the tables on your simplistic dichotomy.


Yes, you are equating the two. You are saying that Israel is no better than suicide bombing human butchers. In your mind, it is the same thing to protect yourself from suicide bombing, as it is to commit suicide bombing. Do you even own a moral compass?

he was a rallying figure head for Islamists around the world

!?!!

Are we still talking about the same Saddam who brutally suppressed the Shia in his country, especially after the Iranian revolution?


Yes, we are. Do you not see Sphinx's own extreme Muslimophobia? Just because Saddam suppressed the Kurds and Shia does not mean he was not considered a rallying figurehead for Islamic supremacists. Islamic supremacists are themselves, after all, Muslimophobes.

No. Nuking Beijing, Moscow and Delhi might have been a worse idea. But it's not far off if your objective is to combat global terrorism. Driving thousands of people to desperation and into the hands of militant groups isn't necessarily the best way of achieving that aim.

No, no one was "driven" to join terror groups. The terrorists fighting in Iraq are mostly foreigners. And anyway, are you actually excusing the fact that these terrorists aim for women and children Iraqis as "excusable" because they were "driven to it" by Americans? Their main targets are Iraqi civilians. Yet somehow Iraqis were "driven" to commit terror against each other by Americans?

Huh?

Do human butcher terrorists not deserve some share of responsibility? Or are they merely puppets being dangled by the nefarious American strings?

For once, I half agree with you. America started it, America should finish it. The question is how, and whether the American people wouldn't prefer to cut their losses in the short term than commit themselves to patching a sinking ship until it floats.

Whether the ship is sinking or not is the question of the hour. The surge appeared to have actually worked quite well. My own take on this is that if I had a crystal ball and knew that Iraq was 100% doomed to failure in the future, it is better to leave now. But we don't know about that. So shouldn't we support the Iraqis, who want to lead a good life, and are fighting the good fight against jihadists? Why do we want to guarantee the massacre as well as Islamic supremacist state that would result from US troops leaving Iraq?

X said...

RT:

Huh? I didn't "say it before," so what is your point?

You said the war drew jihadists from all over the world to Iraq, where the US military can now conveniently eliminate them.

Nice PC word of "insurgents."

It's not an ideal term, but it's certainly more accurate as a collective noun for the militant groups in Iraq than 'terrorists'. Remember, 'terrorists' is what many people consider the US military to be when it bombs civilians, so be very careful when using that word to describe parties to a conflict. It could backfire.

The fact is, we actually are fighting the very terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11

The very terrorists? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'the very terrorists' were on a suicide mission and managed to kill themselves, along with some 3,000 civilians.

There really is Al Queda in Iraq. I do not know if it was known ahead of time that Iraq would serve as a "magnet" for terrorists around the world, but in any case, it is

You're repeating the argument you earlier denied making.

And these terrorists are doing the killing, and would exist whether or not we are in Iraq.

What makes you so certain of that?

Last I checked, 9/11 happened prior to Iraq. The USS Cole happened prior to Iraq. The assassination of Sadat happened prior to Iraq. The bombing of the US embassy in Kenya happened prior to Iraq.

There is a big difference between small groups carrying out individual attacks against high-profile targets and the large-scale sectarian violence going on in Iraq today.

We are fighting terrorists that would exist whether or not we are in Iraq, but they happened to be drawn in Iraq.

I'm sure you fervently believe that, but the fact is you can't prove it.

In a sense, it is more efficient to fight them in one spot, rather than spread all over the world.

See above. And you don't seem to mind the fact that millions of Iraqis are suffering as a result of your little 'anti-terror' campaign. How's that for Muslimophobic?

Saddam was Nazi linked and was a rallying figure head of the Islamic supremacist world.

You can keep repeating that, but it's not going to convince anyone.

What is your point re: Rumsfeld? He met with him in 1983, prior to revealing himself as the tyrant he was.

By the time Rumsfeld met Saddam he had carried out numerous political purges and used chemical and biological weapons in his war with Iran. And just for added flavor, google the fate of Iraq's former health minister Riyadh Ibrahim.

Are you implying Rumsfeld somehow advocated Saddam's terror campaign?

Saddam was certainly a convenient ally for the US (and others) at one point.

You are saying that Israel is no better than suicide bombing human butchers.

No, I'm pointing out that plenty of other people see it that way though, and perhaps you should be concerned about this.

Just because Saddam suppressed the Kurds and Shia does not mean he was not considered a rallying figurehead for Islamic supremacists.

If you had said 'Arab nationalist' I might have agreed with you. Unfortunately, the Islamic supremacists didn't take to Saddam until the dying days of his regime, and then only because the pictures of an embargo-stricken Iraq under siege from Western powers was convenient for their propaganda purposes. It was around that time that Saddam found his 'faith'. He certainly hadn't displayed it during his early years, when he all but abolished Sharia from Iraq's legal system...

Islamic supremacists are themselves, after all, Muslimophobes.

Classic. Only a lizard could bite his own tail in quite such a hilarious way.

No, no one was "driven" to join terror groups.

Oh, it's all about free will then, eh? Thousands of people who previously didn't think of themselves as fighters were simply won over by those really convicing sermons the Islamists were preaching. Sort of like irresistible siren calls, eh?

The terrorists fighting in Iraq are mostly foreigners.

I've heard that claim before. Would you like to give us some precise figures?

Whether the ship is sinking or not is the question of the hour. The surge appeared to have actually worked quite well.

There are people who would disagree with you (1,2)

My own take on this is that if I had a crystal ball and knew that Iraq was 100% doomed to failure in the future, it is better to leave now.

Having destroyed the existing state in Iraq, you would leave millions of Iraqis to their fate if you thought there was no way of creating a new, stable government?

Why do we want to guarantee the massacre as well as Islamic supremacist state that would result from US troops leaving Iraq?

We don't. But before we can speculate about what's going to happen, perhaps we need to better understand how we got here in the first place.

Red Tulips said...

X,

You said the war drew jihadists from all over the world to Iraq, where the US military can now conveniently eliminate them.

Yes, but these groups would have existed regardless of the war in Iraq. So your point is?

It's not an ideal term, but it's certainly more accurate as a collective noun for the militant groups in Iraq than 'terrorists'. Remember, 'terrorists' is what many people consider the US military to be when it bombs civilians, so be very careful when using that word to describe parties to a conflict. It could backfire.

You now equate killing civilians ACCIDENTALLY, with the goal of wiping out jihadists, as somehow equal to the purposeful mass murder of civilians. Where is that moral compass of your's? It appears to be lost.

The very terrorists? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'the very terrorists' were on a suicide mission and managed to kill themselves, along with some 3,000 civilians.

As I stated earlier, we are fighting Al Queda in Iraq, amongst other jihadist groups. So yes, we are literally fighting the very enemy that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

And these terrorists are doing the killing, and would exist whether or not we are in Iraq.

What makes you so certain of that?


Because of the jihad war that has been waged for decades now, which is ongoing, and getting worse, due to oil money fueling hate fires.

There is a big difference between small groups carrying out individual attacks against high-profile targets and the large-scale sectarian violence going on in Iraq today.

There were 10's of thousands of jihadists in existence in training camps on 9/11. We wiped out many when we fought in Afghanistan, but these terrorists are now fighting American troops in Iraq. And what do you mean by "large scale" sectarian strife in Iraq? It is manufactured "sectarian strife," fueled by outsiders. And fighting is not "large scale" in Iraq. It is smaller terror cells.

In a sense, it is more efficient to fight them in one spot, rather than spread all over the world.

See above. And you don't seem to mind the fact that millions of Iraqis are suffering as a result of your little 'anti-terror' campaign. How's that for Muslimophobic?


The USA did not invite terrorists to fight in Iraq, so what is your point? I am not "happy" that terrorists have been drawn to Iraq, as yes, that makes life for Iraqis incredibly difficult. It is easier, as a point of fact, to fight terrorists in one place, rather than around the world. That does not erase the pain for Iraqis. But given terrorists have been drawn to Iraq, they must be fought. And if they are not fought, Iraqis will die.

Saddam was Nazi linked and was a rallying figure head of the Islamic supremacist world.

You can keep repeating that, but it's not going to convince anyone.


It is true. source

By the time Rumsfeld met Saddam he had carried out numerous political purges and used chemical and biological weapons in his war with Iran. And just for added flavor, google the fate of Iraq's former health minister Riyadh Ibrahim.

Saddam met Rumsfeld in 1983, and this was prior to his gassing Kurds. But anyway, meeting someone hardly means active support. (unlike Saddam's support for Zarqawi)

And even if the USA did support Saddam at one point, does this mean they must continue doing so into infinity? By that account, due to some original support for Nazi Germany, the USA was banned from fighting them.

Huh?

Saddam was certainly a convenient ally for the US (and others) at one point.

"Ally" is overstating it. The USA supported Iraq rhetorically against Iran, because of the depravity of the Iranian hostage crisis, and the fact that Iran was a known and stated enemy of the USA by that point. This "proves" what, exactly?

You are saying that Israel is no better than suicide bombing human butchers.

No, I'm pointing out that plenty of other people see it that way though, and perhaps you should be concerned about this.


Of course I am concerned that people across the world have hateful double standards when it comes to Israel. But how does that delegitimize the evil of Saddam's funding of terror?

If you had said 'Arab nationalist' I might have agreed with you. Unfortunately, the Islamic supremacists didn't take to Saddam until the dying days of his regime, and then only because the pictures of an embargo-stricken Iraq under siege from Western powers was convenient for their propaganda purposes. It was around that time that Saddam found his 'faith'. He certainly hadn't displayed it during his early years, when he all but abolished Sharia from Iraq's legal system...

What exactly is your point here? Arab nationalism has morphed into Islamic supremacism in general, across the world. This is not limited to Saddam Hussein. Your point is?

Islamic supremacists are themselves, after all, Muslimophobes.

Classic. Only a lizard could bite his own tail in quite such a hilarious way.


It's true. Islamic supremacists like Sphinx excuse the massacre of Muslims at the hand of other Muslims. Is there nothing more Muslimophobic than that?

No, no one was "driven" to join terror groups.

Oh, it's all about free will then, eh? Thousands of people who previously didn't think of themselves as fighters were simply won over by those really convicing sermons the Islamists were preaching. Sort of like irresistible siren calls, eh?


Are these fighters simply fighting US troops? No. Most of the fighting is against Iraqi civilians. How exactly is killing Iraqi women and children some sort of "rational response" to the "desperation" they were driven to by American troops? Can you answer that one? I sure can't!

The terrorists fighting in Iraq are mostly foreigners.

I've heard that claim before. Would you like to give us some precise figures?


Sure, source

As far as the articles you linked re: the surge's failure; the fact is that violence is cut way down, and the sources you linked to have their own counter-agendas. Whether the decreased violence is sustainable is another matter. I have no crystal ball. But then you have the gaul to completely quote me out of context.

My own take on this is that if I had a crystal ball and knew that Iraq was 100% doomed to failure in the future, it is better to leave now.

Having destroyed the existing state in Iraq, you would leave millions of Iraqis to their fate if you thought there was no way of creating a new, stable government?


Total distortion of what I said and you know it.

Why do we want to guarantee the massacre as well as Islamic supremacist state that would result from US troops leaving Iraq?

We don't. But before we can speculate about what's going to happen, perhaps we need to better understand how we got here in the first place.


Why? Isn't the important thing now to support the stabilization and de-jihadificaton of Iraq, now? Shouldn't the question be whether it is right to continue in Iraq? Even if the war was found to be 100% unjustified initially (which it was not), that has no bearing on whether we should stay.

So what exactly are you hoping to achieve here?

The Sphinx said...

"Yes, it does. Saddam was Nazi linked and was a rallying figure head of the Islamic supremacist world. "

By the time the Nazi regime was destroyed, Saddam was about 8 years old. Oh wait, the link can still go around five different corners to be valid, right?
One of my parents' best friends' mother was in the "Bund Deutscher Mädel" as a little girl (even though she didn't like it) which was a Nazi-led girl scout sort of organization, and let by ardent Nazis. Hence, I have links to Nazis.

(Your logic, not mine)

"Saddam suppressed the Kurds and Shia does not mean he was not considered a rallying figurehead for Islamic supremacists. Islamic supremacists are themselves, after all, Muslimophobes."

I've got a newsflash for you, the rest of the world isn't as schizophrenic as you are, and if you're going to claim that Islamic supremacists have (by definition) an irrational fear and hatred of anything remotely Muslim, then you've got a serious problem with basic logic.

You have no idea how much I chuckled after you falsely accused me of being one, then minutes later falsely accused me of being the other.

You just go ahead and do that "Muslimophobia awareness whatever". You're just going to embarrass yourself, I promise.

"No, no one was "driven" to join terror groups. The terrorists fighting in Iraq are mostly foreigners. And anyway, are you actually excusing the fact that these terrorists aim for women and children Iraqis as "excusable" because they were "driven to it" by Americans? Their main targets are Iraqi civilians."

In fact, no.Their main target are occupation forces and collaborators, and this makes up 74% of all insurgent attacks. The antisemiticislamophobicnazicommunistfascists who proved you wrong on this point are the US Government, who gathered this data. Only 10% of attacks were against civilians (10% too much if you ask me).

"So shouldn't we support the Iraqis, who want to lead a good life, and are fighting the good fight against jihadists? Why do we want to guarantee the massacre as well as Islamic supremacist state that would result from US troops leaving Iraq?"

The day the occupation forces leave Iraq will be declared a national holiday. And whatever good intent you try to cover up this f***-up with might be, there's already been too much damage done for the Iraqis to be really happy in retrospect. You can safely say that almost every person in Iraq knows at least somebody who was killed in both wars by the US on Iraq.

No amount of "But we're here to make you happy =D" will make that right. Ever.

The Sphinx said...

"The USA did not invite terrorists to fight in Iraq, so what is your point?"

If you invade a country, it doesn't even take a two-digit IQ to realize that there WILL be people fighting back, and there WILL be people from surrounding areas who'll travel especially for that purpose. Saying that the US army didn't invite terrorists implies that they didn't expect this to happen, so either you think that they are stupid, or you yourself are.

X said...

Yes, but these groups would have existed regardless of the war in Iraq. So your point is?

Let's get this straight: You're saying Al Qaeda in Iraq existed before the war?

You now equate killing civilians ACCIDENTALLY, with the goal of wiping out jihadists, as somehow equal to the purposeful mass murder of civilians.

You're telling me shock and awe was accidental? Give us a break.

As I stated earlier, we are fighting Al Queda in Iraq, amongst other jihadist groups. So yes, we are literally fighting the very enemy that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

That's one way of seeing it. Another would be that you've helped recruit the very people who are going to continue the 9/11 hijackers' fight.

the jihad war that has been waged for decades now, which is ongoing, and getting worse, due to oil money fueling hate fires.

The jihadists were insignificant to the West until the US gave them TWO failed states from which to run their operations: Afghanistan in the 1990s and Iraq now.

what do you mean by "large scale" sectarian strife in Iraq? It is manufactured "sectarian strife," fueled by outsiders. And fighting is not "large scale" in Iraq. It is smaller terror cells.

If the US military bothered to keep a score we might now the exact figure. As it is, they don't. So we have to rely on other sources. And even the conservative ones say we're nearing 100,000 civilian deaths from violence. That's not counting those who died because they caught typhoid, or couldn't get hospital treatment, or committed suicide.

given terrorists have been drawn to Iraq, they must be fought. And if they are not fought, Iraqis will die.

Why were "terrorists" drawn to Iraq?

Saddam met Rumsfeld in 1983, and this was prior to his gassing Kurds.

But not before he killed plenty of his own people and used weapons of mass destruction against the Iranians. But that's alright, isn't it? Cos he was 'our kind of dictator"

But anyway, meeting someone hardly means active support.

Would you consider supplying someone with war machinery 'active support'?

Are these fighters simply fighting US troops? No. Most of the fighting is against Iraqi civilians. How exactly is killing Iraqi women and children some sort of "rational response" to the "desperation" they were driven to by American troops? Can you answer that one? I sure can't!

Who says the desperate are rational?

The terrorists fighting in Iraq are mostly foreigners.

I've heard that claim before. Would you like to give us some precise figures?

Sure, source


Boy, don't you bother reading your own sources? The article you cite says the majority of foreign fighters are Saudi, but that most of the insurgents are Iraqi. come back when you've figured that one out.

the fact is that violence is cut way down, and the sources you linked to have their own counter-agendas. Whether the decreased violence is sustainable is another matter.

I suppose we'll see what happens.

before we can speculate about what's going to happen, perhaps we need to better understand how we got here in the first place.

Why? Isn't the important thing now to support the stabilization and de-jihadificaton of Iraq, now?


Let me get this straight? You don't what to know why we went to war?

Red Tulips said...

Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath party, which itself formed as an Arab Nazi party. So yes, he was Nazi linked.

The article I linked to shows that the deadliest attacks are perpetrated by outside jihadists drawn to Iraq. Most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by outside jihadists. And anyway, all of them are indiscriminate, attacking women and children and the US troops alike. But, oh right, they were "drawn to it" by the US presence in Iraq. They are helpless puppets, unable to control themselves.

Yeah, right.

Rumsfeld met with Saddam; big deal, American leaders also met with Hitler. Does not that mean WWII was then ipso facto not justified? Get real, that is the biggest load of caca ever invented by the left.

Finally, my point is that you keep on waxing rhapsodic about how the war was completely unjustified, and I already provided justifications. I am not in the US government, and I have no idea what the actual justifications were for the war. But what exactly is your point here? We are there now and it is justified to stay NOW, as we are killing jihadis NOW. Are you totally clueless about that fact?

Finally, Sphinx, you may laugh over my correct label of you being a Muslimophobe, but it does not matter. You are a raving Muslimophobe. You hate your fellow co-religionists, as you excuse their mass murder at the hands of Al Queda and somehow think America is worse. This is clear and utter hatred of your co-religionists. Just because you are Muslim does not mean you cannot be a Muslimophobe. And that is exactly what you are.

X said...

RT:

Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath party, which itself formed as an Arab Nazi party. So yes, he was Nazi linked.

Does that mean Rumsfeld was Nazi-linked for meeting with Saddam and supplying him with war material?

The article I linked to shows that the deadliest attacks are perpetrated by outside jihadists drawn to Iraq.

You said it showed most jihadists are foreigners. That is flat-out wrong, going by the sources you cite.

And anyway

(RT realizes he made a mistake...)

all of them are indiscriminate, attacking women and children and the US troops alike.

So that's alright then? Are you saying that thousands of foreigners would have poured into Iraq and joined forces with local militants to slit the throats of 3-year-olds even if the US hadn't invaded, dismantled the Iraqi army and police and stirred up a hornets nest of sectarian hatred? You really don't have a clue, do you?

Rumsfeld met with Saddam; big deal

...and yet Bush won't meet with Ahmadinejad. Do you think he should, or would that be too big a deal? We're not talking about providing Iran with financial and material support to wage a war, just a nice little chat about world affairs.

you keep on waxing rhapsodic about how the war was completely unjustified

In fact, I don't. I say that the justification that was provided at the time was a lie: Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States and the rest of the world in 2002.

I am not in the US government, and I have no idea what the actual justifications were for the war.

Don't you listen to what your leaders say?

We are there now and it is justified to stay NOW, as we are killing jihadis NOW.

Would it be justified to move on to Saudi Arabia next if there was a prospect of killing jihadis there - even if it means destroying a stable state, stoking sectarian tensions, killing several thousand civilians and sending oil prices to $200/barrel?

Red Tulips said...

Does that mean Rumsfeld was Nazi-linked for meeting with Saddam and supplying him with war material?

Rumsfeld met with Saddam, but in fact the USA supplied mostly rhetoric, rather than weaponry, to Iraq. So, point of fact, you are wrong. And as I said, members of the US government met with Hitler. Does that mean WWII was unjustified? Get real!

You said it showed most jihadists are foreigners. That is flat-out wrong, going by the sources you cite.

Okay, I should have said the deadliest attacks are perpetrated by outsiders. Which is a fact easily seen in that article.

So that's alright then? Are you saying that thousands of foreigners would have poured into Iraq and joined forces with local militants to slit the throats of 3-year-olds even if the US hadn't invaded, dismantled the Iraqi army and police and stirred up a hornets nest of sectarian hatred? You really don't have a clue, do you?

I am saying that the jihadists would have existed anyway, as there is a jihad against the USA. I do not know where they would have gone, but they exist, regardless. They hate us because they hate. If you have not been paying attention, the Mideast is filled with daily diatribes against the USA and Israel, all over the media. This hate existed before 9/11 and before the war in Iraq. So spare me your "we created them" nonsense. If you know anything about the Mideast, you would know that is a crock of BS.

...and yet Bush won't meet with Ahmadinejad. Do you think he should, or would that be too big a deal? We're not talking about providing Iran with financial and material support to wage a war, just a nice little chat about world affairs.

Why do you want Bush to meet with Ahmadinejad? What will it accomplish? Iran is set in its Holocaust denial, in its goals for elliminating Israel, in its nuclear weapons, in its suppression of dissidents, in its support for terrorism. Do you really believe a talk will do anything except make the USA complacent against the Iranian threat, as well as empower the worst of the jihadists within Iran through given them an impremataur of legitimacy? Let me add, are you saying that talks with Saddam actually accomplished anything? You are saying this was a mistake, so you now want to repeat a mistake? Why, exactly?

In fact, I don't. I say that the justification that was provided at the time was a lie: Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States and the rest of the world in 2002.

No, it has not been proven to be a lie. It was proven to be wrong. There was no mass stockpile of WMD's. However, this could just as easily have been due to bad intelligence as it was due to a lie. After all, bad intelligence led to 9/11 happening. Bad intelligence has been known to happen. But we also do not know all the justifications for war; we only know what we were told. And regardless of the WMD justification, there were and are many other reasons to justify war in Iraq.

Would it be justified to move on to Saudi Arabia next if there was a prospect of killing jihadis there - even if it means destroying a stable state, stoking sectarian tensions, killing several thousand civilians and sending oil prices to $200/barrel?

War only makes sense if there is an imminent threat and war is feasible. The Saudi state, however horrible it is, appears to not be as bad and extreme as Saudi citizens themselves. An example is how Saudi citizens were upset when the Saudi government tried to enact legislation that would have enabled women to legally drive. This contrasts with Iraq, where Saddam was the extreme one, and the Iraqi citizens want democracy. To contrast, there is a law in Iraq that REQUIRES that 25% of parliamentarians be women. War against Saudi Arabia, even if there are jihadis there (and there are many jihadis there), frankly makes no sense. Should be rather obvious.

Red Tulips said...

Saddam's terror links

X said...

The WSJ op-ed is interestin, but it uses the classic sleight of using a series of apparent facts in order to present a completely unsupported conclusion at the end:

All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S.

Saddam Hussein presented no threat to the US in 2003. What he may have done is provide support to groups that threatened US interests. So does Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba for that matter. We're still no closer to having firm evidence of the *imminent* threat Saddam posed which required a full-scale assault on the Iraqi nation.

Every intelligence agent knows that you cannot combat terrorism trough conventional warfare. The US had plenty of options at its disposal to take out groups hostile to its interests without endangering the lives of millions. In other words, whydid the administration choose the 'dumb' option of invading Iraq to deal with the terrorism problem when all this has done is create a breeding ground for further terrorism?

X said...

Rumsfeld met with Saddam, but in fact the USA supplied mostly rhetoric, rather than weaponry, to Iraq.

Rhetoric? Is that what you call providing Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian forces, tanks (via Egypt), a computer database system, surveillance equipment, helicopters and "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" shipments? That's pretty strong rhetoric, especially for someone the US knew was using WMD in contravention of international law.

as I said, members of the US government met with Hitler.

You've got to learn to stop relating everying back to World War II and the Nazis. It does nothing for your argument. Stick to what we're discussing: did or did the US not provide Saddam with material support to fight his opponents during the 1970s and 1980s?

I am saying that the jihadists would have existed anyway, as there is a jihad against the USA.

I know it's fashionable in some circles to regard Muslims as some sort of alien race that cannot be fathomed, and from which occasionally spring murderous groups hellbent on destroying the West. The fact of the matter is that these groups need two things to thrive: recruits and funding. What better way to ensure both than to launch a crusade on the Arabian Peninsula? You could hardly do more for the jihadist cause if you tried.

They hate us because they hate.

That's a pointless tautology.

the Mideast is filled with daily diatribes against the USA and Israel, all over the media.

Why?

Why do you want Bush to meet with Ahmadinejad?

What's the point of ever meeting a foreign leader, and an elected one to boot? How about to discuss ones differences? To try to build up mutual trust and find solutions to common problems? Why did Nixon go to China and Reagan go to Iceland? I daresay both China and the USSR were a greater threat to the US, and killed more people, than Iran. And yet...it's just so darn inconvenient for Bush to speak to Ahmadinejad because of some nasty views the latter holds about Israel. I guess Bush must be a man of strong moral principles, eh?

Let me add, are you saying that talks with Saddam actually accomplished anything?

That's disingenuous. The point of Rumsfeld meeting Saddam wasn't to dissuade him from doing what he did, it was to encourage him and offer him material support!

regardless of the WMD justification, there were and are many other reasons to justify war in Iraq.

Bring 'em on!

War only makes sense if there is an imminent threat and war is feasible.

So what imminent threat did Saddam's state pose? And how feasible was the US battleplan for Iraq?

This contrasts with Iraq, where Saddam was the extreme one, and the Iraqi citizens want democracy.

I'm sure the Iraqis wanted rid of Saddam, but did they want their country in ruins?

dawud al-gharib said...

err, red tulips, I've no love and a lot of loathing for terrorists, arab nationalists, anti-Semites (I accept the existence of Israel, admire many Jews, including Einstein and Uri Avnery), and fanatic ideologues...

but your insistence that Arab hatred has 'nothing to do with us' - err, has some factual problems;

- Operation Ajax
- covert support of Saddam in his rise to power, as documented by PBS in the frontline documentary on Saddam - additionally, if Saddam was linked to the Nazi-inspired Arab Nationalist 'Golden Square' then why would America have helped him out? you elide the evidence of the "Web of Deceit" http://www.amazon.com/Web-Deceit-History-Complicity-Churchill/dp/1590512383

- support for tyrannical regimes, including but not limited to the Shah of Iran and his SAVAK, the rise of Hosni Mubarak and his torture squads, the Saud family (now really, if there wasn't ARAMCO and oil, would the House of Saud be able to afford it's oppressive state structure and pay for the Wahabi propaganda you rightly despise?)

- the slaughter of Lebanese in the American-sponsored Israeli invasions, including the 1982 bombing of Lebanon from the New Jersey ship with massive shells which destroyed civilian homes and buildings, as cited by Osama in his reversion from being a disco-going Saudi in Lebanon to being an America-hating terrorist?

- and if you want to get historical about the Ottoman Empire, WW1 and Wilson, please read "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin, a Zionist British conservative historian, who could not be at all described as sympathetic to Arab nationalism, but who carefully notes that 'conspiracy' is the only word which could fairly describe the way the "Great Powers" duplicitously dealt with the Arab revolt.

So, basically, when you say that what the West, and specifically America, has done in the Arab world 'has nothing to do with why they hate us' - well, you're either ignorant or lying. I'll generously assume the first.

The Sphinx said...

"Finally, Sphinx, you may laugh over my correct label of you being a Muslimophobe, but it does not matter. You are a raving Muslimophobe. You hate your fellow co-religionists, as you excuse their mass murder at the hands of Al Queda and somehow think America is worse. This is clear and utter hatred of your co-religionists. Just because you are Muslim does not mean you cannot be a Muslimophobe. And that is exactly what you are."

What a stupid liar you are. I NEVER excused the death of civilians at the hands of Al Qaeda or anything, and if you had a couple of braincells more at your disposal to actually read and understand my previous comments, you'd realize that all I said was that your government has more innocent blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has ever managed, and this is a statistically backed FACT. Stop lying and saying I said things when I have clearly said the OPPOSITE and selling me the inane rubbish that I don't care about civilian life. I don't know whether your just a liar, a cretin, or both.

"Why do you want Bush to meet with Ahmadinejad? What will it accomplish? Iran is set in its Holocaust denial, in its goals for elliminating Israel, in its nuclear weapons, in its suppression of dissidents, in its support for terrorism. Do you really believe a talk will do anything except make the USA complacent against the Iranian threat, as well as empower the worst of the jihadists within Iran through given them an impremataur of legitimacy? Let me add, are you saying that talks with Saddam actually accomplished anything? You are saying this was a mistake, so you now want to repeat a mistake? Why, exactly?"

It's nothing short of hilarious that one could just make you indulge in a whole sermon that contributes nothing to discussion, addresses none of the points, and proves how much you misunderstand whatever the other has said.

When X says: "...and yet Bush won't meet with Ahmadinejad." in response to your point that it's a "big deal" that Rumsfeld met up with Saddam, he was proving your apologetic double standards that it's ok for you that Rumsfeld meets up with a tyrant, but would be a catastrophe if Bush met up with another.

This was in no way a suggestion that Bush should meet up with Ahmadinejad, and yet you rip it out of context and ask him why he puts this suggestion.

Providing links that contradict your point, flying straight past the addressed issues, setting up very weak strawman arguments, throwing around bullsh!t accusations and lying about your opponents. Is there any fallacy you haven't gone through already?

Lex said...

Dawud--very salient points. The history cannot be ignored, rather the recent history and not this rubbish that there are old wounds causing hate due to the Crusades. The carve up was quite significant and the fall of the Ottoman Empire treated by Western powers as like vultures flying in fighting for a share. I would never say that this excuses al Qaeda's crimes, but then neither does anyone here though accused regularly.

You mentioned PBS's Frontline. Did you by chance see the report they did on the wooing of W. Bush prior to the 2000 elections by Wolfowitz and the pro-war lobby? Quite interesting, once he was won over by this crowd. The dominoes continue to fall in line to this day.

Sphinx & Bless--don't tease the linguist, dammit!

Oh, and Google "General Mike DeLong" (a.k.a."Rifle Mike DeLong"). Follow the trail. Much will be explained there. I'm completely serious.