angrysoba
Philosophile
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Yes
No and I said as much in my original post on this thread
I obviously cant answer that question, only time will tell if the struggles the Iraqi people went through was worth it
I am not making any demand at all, only suggesting people consider there are still chapters to be written in this story
And I was definitely one of them. I have never made any secret of my opposition to the war. But sometimes good things can come from bad situations. I try to be an optimist, because the alternative to dark for my tastes
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So you agree that money, (that war) and the money spent to enforce the UN resolutions (up until the second gulf war) was well spent?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This is of course true. The problem was the burden of enforcing the restrictions imposed by the UN. Should the US have just said "don't do it again".
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I'm of two minds concerning the invasion of Iraq. On one hand, I'm furious that Bush and company got away with lying to the American people, telling us that Saddam Hussien was involved with Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction (aka nukes). The war also caused a lot of misery and destruction.
On the other hand, Saddam was a horrible dictator, and he perpetrated a genocidal policy toward the Kurds. In addition, in order to suppress the swamp Arabs of the Tigris - Euphrates delta region, he turned that area into a desert, thereby destroying a rich environment. Right now, there are efforts to restore that habitat. However, it's doubtful that it can ever be brought back to what it was. Saddam's death didn't come soon enough.
As to the national unity of Iraq, the place is an artificial nation. Let it split apart. Logic and justice would dictate that we recognize a Kurdish state. The Kurds are a separate nationality, speaking an Indo-Europen language, rather than speaking Arabic. They were there before the Arabs invaded Mesopotamia, just as they were there long before the Turks invaded Asia Minor. They have a right to their own country. However, were we to recognize an independent state of Kurdistan, we would alienate the Turks, just as we would alienate them by insisting on the reality of the Armenian Holocaust, perpetrated by the Turks. That's one great problem of getting stuck in Mideast quagmires: There's practically no way to disengage in a way that results in just solution.
On the other hand, Saddam was a horrible dictator, and he perpetrated a genocidal policy toward the Kurds. In addition, in order to suppress the swamp Arabs of the Tigris - Euphrates delta region, he turned that area into a desert, thereby destroying a rich environment. Right now, there are efforts to restore that habitat. However, it's doubtful that it can ever be brought back to what it was. Saddam's death didn't come soon enough.
As to the national unity of Iraq, the place is an artificial nation. Let it split apart. Logic and justice would dictate that we recognize a Kurdish state. The Kurds are a separate nationality, speaking an Indo-Europen language, rather than speaking Arabic. They were there before the Arabs invaded Mesopotamia, just as they were there long before the Turks invaded Asia Minor. They have a right to their own country. However, were we to recognize an independent state of Kurdistan, we would alienate the Turks, just as we would alienate them by insisting on the reality of the Armenian Holocaust, perpetrated by the Turks. That's one great problem of getting stuck in Mideast quagmires: There's practically no way to disengage in a way that results in just solution.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm sorry for being unclear. You can't say Iraq was open in their compliance with the restrictions placed on them after the first gulf war. The US was expected to enforce these restrictions (already imposed) while the UN debated what would be a long term solution to the problem. Did Iraq have WMD at one time? Yes. Was Sadam trustworthy enough to believe he would comply? Why did he fight so hard to deny weapons inspections?Sorry I am not sure I understand what you are asking
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
When did he say that?
...you have no idea what weapons of mass destruction are.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Maybe we should have taken your advice in WW 2 (or 1). No one would have bothered us.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Ahh I understand.
It is an interesting point, and one I think diplomatic rushing helped make worse. Although a leader, Saddam was no statesmen. I don't believe he ever traveled outside the Arab world in his life, and this gave him a very truncated view of world diplomacy.
Admitting that the WMDs never existed or had been disposed never entered Saddam's head. It would (from an Arab perspective) be an admission of weakness he could never live down.
Personally I would have liked more time to resolve these issues, but then continue a build up of force in the region so Saddam would be under no illusions what would happen if he didn't ultimately hold true to his word
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I agree completely. This build-up would of course been taken as a threat to the region by other countries (Iran comes to mind). Sadam was found in a hole in the ground. I have no doubts he would not give up until everything he knew was gone.
Virus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,875
What would you rather live under? A democracy or a genocidal totalitarian state?
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Why are we deciding for other people?
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Which is why third party interventions rarely succeed if ever
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Here's Wikipedia's definition of WMD:
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).
Granted, WMD's also include biological and chemical warfare weapons. However, I think you will have to agree that most people think of nukes when they hear the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." It would be disingenuous to assert that Bush didn't know that saying Iraq had WMD's would make most Americans see this as nuclear weapons.
As to the Iraq - Al Qaeda link see this, particularly this quote from the site:
In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States.
Again, it would be disingenuous to assert that Bush didn't know, particularly in the wake of 9/11, that such an assertion, when used to justify invading Iraq, would not be taken by the American public as a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Who are you trying to convince? Why did you say "AKA nukes"? Did the US ever say they had "nukes" or were you just trying to pad your hand?