Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 140

Thread: Why We Are in Iraq

  1. #16
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG
    This argument goes back again to the moral authority one again. While Saddam directed the money towards the families of bombers as a compensation (like buying the farm); the US has a very open history of supplying financial and material aid directly to either non-state or state actors, knowing full well that aid would be used against civilians or as terrorist weapons against militaries.
    You can't justify Saddam's bad behavior by pointing to that of others.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  2. #17
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    From orignal article :-


    Saddam was not so evil that the US was not prepared to support him and keep him in power and alive. If the US is going to intervene in this manner it is going to create problems for itself and others.
    The fact was that this "prudant policy" is but one of many tha tthe US and other interventionist countries indulge in. but as the CIA term it, "blowback" occurs. I guess as long as the blowback happens on someone else's watch none of us should care?
    A decision like the one you are discussing can only be seen in context. From today's view-point, it looks rather obvious that we shouldn't have given any support to Saddam, but 20-30 years ago the decision wasn't so clear. Iran had just taken our people hostage. They seemed like more of a threat at the time.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Confed999
    The "enemy of my enemy, is my friend" thing is often not true. He was that evil, he just wasn't attacking us then. One must remember though, many in the West were with the US in that one.
    Including the UK. However that doesn't make it right.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    A decision like the one you are discussing can only be seen in context. From today's view-point, it looks rather obvious that we shouldn't have given any support to Saddam, but 20-30 years ago the decision wasn't so clear. Iran had just taken our people hostage. They seemed like more of a threat at the time.
    Perhaps, but equally the experts of the time had to be able to see the consequence of their actions. Saddam was provoking his neighbours. Aligning ourselves with him (for whatever reason) was only going to get us drawn into another problem. Exclusion of both Iran and Iraq would have been a more prudent act.

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    There is a difference between what you have said and what others have said. Your question is "why did they attack us?" others have said, "What did we do?" The first question implies they there is no logical reason for their actions the second assumes their actions were logical e.g. they were responding to something we did.
    Equally, asking the question can cause no harm. If we did nothing that could have provoked them the answer would be "Nothing". If we find something that gave them grievance perhaps we could look to address that. Think of it as a global customer satisfaction survey.

    Currently the reverse position seems to be that we are absolutely correct, in all actions and thoughts, and are, in fact, above question on all matters of our interventionist foreign policy. That all anger, hatred and action directed at us is unprovoked, irrational and without foundation. If so that would be the only time the history of human endeavour, at least on this planet, where humans have proven to be infallible (Roman Catholic views on the Pope notwithstanding). It might be that in the areas of concern we have only acted with the best of intentions, or with due consideration to all of the area in question. But until we analyse it, we won't find out. This, i don't think, constitutes treason - actually i don't think treason is the right word, heresy seems more fitting.

  6. #21
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    Perhaps, but equally the experts of the time had to be able to see the consequence of their actions.
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't believe what Saddam was going to do in the future was foreseeable.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    However that doesn't make it right.
    You don't have to tell me, but since you said US 3 times in your statement I needed to keep the record straight. Especially since the only real support Saddam ever got from the US was durring the Iran-Iraq war, alot of other countries are guilty of far more than the US. Still, the one truly at fault for everything that's happened to Iraq for decades is Saddam.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor smilingassassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Dec 03
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    From orignal article :-


    Saddam was not so evil that the US was not prepared to support him and keep him in power and alive. If the US is going to intervene in this manner it is going to create problems for itself and others.
    The fact was that this "prudant policy" is but one of many tha tthe US and other interventionist countries indulge in. but as the CIA term it, "blowback" occurs. I guess as long as the blowback happens on someone else's watch none of us should care?

    Trooth time and again this flawed arguement has been used to denouce the act of bringing Saddam to justice, we suported him yes, but you convieniently forget about the cold war, which is no longer on going, no need to support distastefull regeimes any more. If it was wrong to support these tyrants in an effort to maintain stability in a very volitile period of human history, why is it now wrong to take out these tyrants when the cold war has ended peacefully? Its a circular agruement that advocates doing nothing.

  9. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie

    Do me a favor, don't even mention the word morality to me with Saddam in the same sentence. They mix like oil and water.
    Morality wise Saddm was an a hole. I didn't say anything to match Saddam positively with morality, im talking about the moral authority of the US, regarding certain actions.

    Am i not allowed to use terms and concepts commonly used in international relations and security issues, when commenting on US foreign policy?

    Any other words you don't want me to use in conversation? If so, don't worry bout engaging me in the issues, im not going to handicap myself because you can't accept what you incorrectly perceive to be a meaning of a word or concept.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor smilingassassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Dec 03
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    So what you are saying is Saddam was Immoral, but so is the U.S. for taking him down? If so that dosn't wash with me because if that was the case we were wrong for taking out Hitler. I look at the end result (so far), the Iraqi's will be able to vote for whoever the hell they want in power, whats immoral about that?

  11. #26
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie
    The first paragraph was information the US had obtained, but could not reveal/expose the source internationally, nor use it to overthrow Saddam.
    Julie, this statement of yours does'nt do justice to a person with a decent education like you. The only behind the scenes activity was about what lies have to be fed to the US population and the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie
    I believe the money was getting to the families, otherwise, they would have continued at the rapid rate they were being committed after Saddam was overthrown. Bush's agenda contains any dilemma giving him international pressure. There is pressure on the US to do something about the Palestinian/Israel conflict.
    This is an example of the lies fed to you. In time you'll will learn from where all the money went to the sucide bombers families. Besides you don't need money to motivate sucide bombers, more sinister methods are used, I can give examples but it out of place in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie
    Do me a favor, don't even mention the word morality to me with Saddam in the same sentence. They mix like oil and water.
    Neither is the US in a position to speak of morality. Please see what you have done to the island of Diego Garcia. Denied people their own homes, just because they have no power or natural resources to speak of.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/835963.stm
    http://100777.com/doc/1014

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by smilingassassin
    So what you are saying is Saddam was Immoral, but so is the U.S. for taking him down? If so that dosn't wash with me because if that was the case we were wrong for taking out Hitler. I look at the end result (so far), the Iraqi's will be able to vote for whoever the hell they want in power, whats immoral about that?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...phfocus20.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer67.html

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-05.htm

    Sorry, i don't know how to link those so you will have to cutnpaste if you are interested in understanding the term 'moral authority.'

    Those links are articles explaining or using moral authority in certain contexts, i was trying to find a political dictionary type explanation but couldnt, and im on dialup today, so it will take to long to find anything better. Also i got those pages randomly from a google search, although they are liberal it wasnt an intentional bias on my behalf, just what was there, i'm not sure if conservatives acknowledge it anyway.

    Anyway heres my translation of what it means.

    It means, you cannot expect to influence a person who has engaged in an action, to stop doing that action, if you yourself partake in a similar action.

    ie, a kid grows up his father smokes, when he is 14 his father catches him smoking, that fathers reaction to this (a lecture or punishment in an attempt to influence the boy to stop) will not be as effective in influncing the boy had the father not smoked. In these situations you have a lessened degree of legitimacy to influence another. You can apply this to many situations not just social ones.

    Thats what my argument was.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by smilingassassin
    Trooth time and again this flawed arguement has been used to denouce the act of bringing Saddam to justice, we suported him yes, but you convieniently forget about the cold war, which is no longer on going, no need to support distastefull regeimes any more. If it was wrong to support these tyrants in an effort to maintain stability in a very volitile period of human history, why is it now wrong to take out these tyrants when the cold war has ended peacefully? Its a circular agruement that advocates doing nothing.
    We sided with the Russians in supplying arms to Iraq. I don't quite see your point.

    My point is that we need to address our foreign policy so that we don't support or create future problems for ourselves. This level of analysis, that perhaps we might have done something wrong in the past, seems to be heresy. And yet its unlikely that we have never done anything wrong in the past.

  14. #29
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    I would just say this, that the reasons trotted out for the invasion of Iraq were figments of imagination!

    Now, the rap is being faced by the CIA, which has throughout history stood the US good in good tiomes and bad. It is a damn shame to let a good service down to serve narrow interests. Especially a service vowed to silence.

    I have seen posts here that indicate that apart from the right wing everyone in the US conspired to let the US Administration down. Very laughable.

    I have seen the power of security fears on folks, who are even scared of Casper, the friendly ghost! Like it or not, we face it daily. So, don't lecture me.

    Folks, what has been done has been done.

    It maybe right, it maybe wrong.

    There is no requirement to fish out bedtime stories to justify. Agreed the conservatives are brilliant blokes, supercharged exclusively by sudden heavenly edictal emanicaption denied to others. But the truth lies elsewhere.

    Am I quibbling?

    No chance.

    I beleive its Que Sera Sera. Let's look beyond. Let's change a nightmare to a better dream.

    Let's get this mess over and fast.

    The agony of the person who posted on this website that his relative has returned from Iraq and he was rejoicing with so much of ecstacy as to share his joy is enough to tell us that this has to stop sooner than later.

    That post indicates that all is not so hunky dory. NO war is hunky dory.

    The sad part is that civilians in th comfort of their homes and on the website spew patriotic stuff without realise the the unfortuate reality faced by those in uniform, be it the US or be it India.

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,832
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG
    Im talking about the moral authority of the US, regarding certain actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG
    It means, you cannot expect to influence a person who has engaged in an action, to stop doing that action, if you yourself partake in a similar action.
    Well, spit fire and save the matches! By those two passages above, and for the US to display moral authority, means we would have to deal with terrorist acts through diplomacy with the terrorists. The US displayed an appropriate amount of moral authority when we sustained other terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 when NOTHING was done about it on the part of the US. Enough is enough....burn me once, shame on you....burn me twice, shame on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    Julie, this statement of yours does'nt do justice to a person with a decent education like you. The only behind the scenes activity was about what lies have to be fed to the US population and the world.
    I was not responding to US actions based upon lies. I merely compared the rapid decline of suicide bombings in Palestine after the fall of Saddam to entertain the possibility that the probability of Saddam paying those suicide bombers substantial amounts of money could very well be true.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 09:48
  2. Iraq in Books - Review Essay
    By Shek in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29 Feb 08,, 11:08
  3. Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward
    By astralis in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Oct 06,, 18:51
  4. Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Aug 05,, 13:29
  5. Quagmire or not?
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04 Jul 05,, 18:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •