The Iraqi war

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:24 pm UTC

Exactly!

First post too! :D

Good first post Nihilena
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:12 pm UTC

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that any reasonable analysis from the point of view of government leadership would have led to that conclusion.
That's not what you're saying. You're saying that any reasonable analysis from the point of view of government leadership would have led to the conclusion that the risk of Iraq having WMDs was real enough to find them in violation of 1441, not that they "certainly had them".

If France thought they had no WMDs they would have said that they were satisfied with the inspection process.
You can agree with someone's goal without agreeing with their methodology.

If we take as a given that Iraq had WMDs, does that justify attacking a sovereign nation and forcibly changing their system of government?
Yes.
The primary reason to believe this:
A government's responsibility is to its people, not to other governments. Protecting its citizens through war is more important than protecting the sovereignty of hostile nations.

The most disturbing aspect of the Iraq war in my opinion are the inverted similarities to our own American revolutionary war.
There are, and there aren't.
They too are fighting against an oppressive foreign power, though their justification is mostly religious instead of economic.
Here's where I think the "aren't" outweighs the "are". I don't think U.S. occupation can be considered oppressive, if one takes the reference frame of occupations. It's certainly more oppressive than what we would want the rest of their lives to be, but I feel it's less oppressive than most occupations are, and we have stated from day 1 that we do not intend to stay.

Since when does America's economic well-being justify military action?
Well... since the start of history? One could argue that America should sacrifice its economic well-being out of a lack of desire to do military actions, but I don't think that's an argument many people would enjoy living under.

If we decide that France is seeming kind of shady, ain't calling me baby, are we going to take action to protect our interests again?
Well, first, France is a nuclear power. Messing with them is decidedly unwise. Second, we're a nuclear power. Messing with us is decidedly unwise. So, for both of us, anything besides diplomatic showdowns would be more damaging than it would be helpful.

When our administration uses one of the few unifying events in our nations recent history (September 11th) and its (now trademark) scare tactics to drum up support for what amounts to a war for enterprise to benefit private citizens, there should be moral outrage.
Well, there is moral outrage. A nontrivial part of it is overblown, but that always happens when you talk about outrage.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Bluesprite
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:41 am UTC

Postby Bluesprite » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:18 pm UTC

Rorgg wrote:At this point, all I can say is I read what you wrote, I understand it, and I still disagree, because it's a lot of just interpretation and mind-reading of others' intentions.


That's fair. In essence we're both colouring our analyses with our political outlook.

Vaniver wrote:That's not what you're saying. You're saying that any reasonable analysis from the point of view of government leadership would have led to the conclusion that the risk of Iraq having WMDs was real enough to find them in violation of 1441, not that they "certainly had them".


I'm not sure I understand. I'd say your summary of my point of view is correct though.

Owijad wrote:@ Bluesprite:
A freakin' weapons inspector, for chissakes



You found a dissenter. Congratulations. "I once believed X but now believe Y!" Makes great propaganda, and says nothing about X or Y. X could still be true. Y could still be true.

Edits 1 & 2: Syntax
Where does the light go when the light goes out?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:27 pm UTC

I'm not sure I understand.
Grammatically, you agreed with something you didn't agree with.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:06 pm UTC


You found a dissenter. Congratulations. "I once believed X but now believe Y!" Makes great propaganda, and says nothing about X or Y. X could still be true. Y could still be true.


Or it could be that as an official weapons inspector you simply can't say whatever you want while still on an assignment, just the CIA officials, after resigning, said that the Goverment knew there were no weapons, if you say that while you work for the Goverment.. well you won't be working for the goverment :P
That's not what you're saying. You're saying that any reasonable analysis from the point of view of government leadership would have led to the conclusion that the risk of Iraq having WMDs was real enough to find them in violation of 1441, not that they "certainly had them".


Real enough that they didn't care if there were WMDs, that people have spoken out and claimed that they knew that there were none but that it might be percieved that there were?
(read my previous post)

Yes.
The primary reason to believe this:
A government's responsibility is to its people, not to other governments. Protecting its citizens through war is more important than protecting the sovereignty of hostile nations.


But you do not agree that this has been a miserable failure and that america now more likely to be attacked, not to mention the fact that a great number of Iraqi and American soldiers have died while doing this?
I think it comes down to this, Bush had to make an assesment of the facts, was Saddam able, was he willing, to cause serious harm?
The correct awnser was no
He thought yes, this is a failure right?
Then we go onto the invasion, the first steps, defeating the Iraqi army, as (as I predicted btw :P) incredibly succesful, after that .. well there were no Weapons of mass destruction.
this was a success as far, good job dude!
But then .. well there were simply wrong decisions made, because the country is in a fuck up.
This is a failure right?

He has not served his people, even if he might have believe he was acting in their best interest.


Well... since the start of history? One could argue that America should sacrifice its economic well-being out of a lack of desire to do military actions, but I don't think that's an argument many people would enjoy living under.


This is BS
You seem to be confusing effeciency, economic advantages with Moralty.
Don't get me wrong, they mix up, for example it might be advantagous to kill one guy rather than ruin the whole economy, but they often have conflicts of interest, and Morality is the moral way to go.
Putting pinochet in rule of Chile might have had some financial advantages but people were killed and tortured and thousand of people fled their homes. I do not think the economic advantages were sufficent.
Around 100 000-300 000 Israelis have died.
How much money are you willing to give up to justify that? Would you thinkit okey if someone raped and killed your mother and hten gave you whatever money she might effectively produce in the rest of her life?

Military actions can sometimes be morally suprior aswell, but do not confuse the two, just because it will earn you money does not mean it's good.

Well, first, France is a nuclear power. Messing with them is decidedly unwise. Second, we're a nuclear power. Messing with us is decidedly unwise. So, for both of us, anything besides diplomatic showdowns would be more damaging than it would be helpful.


Question: Do you think the human rights, or perhaps even the constitution, applies to, or rather, should apply to, everyone, or that they are reserved for yourself and other americans?

Well, there is moral outrage. A nontrivial part of it is overblown, but that always happens when you talk about outrage.


Not really.
Bush most likely cheated in florida, dead people voted for him in crucial districts.
Moral outrage? Not really.

I want to again quote Blix, what he said right before the Invasion, I quoted it already but people messed it up with stuff he said earlier, and by the by, the reason he did not want weapons insectors was because he needed the weapons to prevent rebellion, which while is not really justifiable, something you might want your leaders to think of.
"access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard, although "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament."

I interpet this as
"They are showing us what we are asking for, where you said we should look, but they are not happy about it", which really makes sence. With that sort of ambiguity it really makes alot more sence to say "let's have another look" rather than "GO GO GO!".

He's a bloody dictator would have been fine if they'd made the case the right way


Well it's not excatly a good enough reason, why not Invade saudi arabia then?
Or iran?
Or China?
Or North Korea?
Or one of the other dictatorships?


You wanna quote your source?


Wikipedia which quotes it's sources, but for you, anything


I'll leave out the discussion on imperialism, simply put people don't like being imperialised, I do not see why one people have the right to force another under their rule.


2) Bush and his advisors knew that invading Iraq had more positives than negatives, by their tally. They also knew that their analysis would be unpopular. They decided (probably unwisely) that gambling that Iraq had WMDs and presenting that as fact would give them enough momentum to start the war, and might turn out to not be a lie. So, they did the right thing, but for the entirely wrong reasons.

I don't think Bush is the devil, I think he's an idiot, and an asshole. I am sure he could have been a great guy if his father hadn't been an idiot and an asshole aswell.
So how was it the right thing?
You claim it was fighting Al Qaida, yet they have incresed their influence in Iraq, and as America gets more hated no doubt they become more liked, which is hardly good in the war on terror.
The country is, compared to 2000-2003, alot less secure now than it was in saddams rule
It's hardly been benefitial to the american nation Economy wise, the real winners are the corporations getting the deals to rebuild the nation, but since they get payed by the goverment to do this, it's not a good deal

Did the US leadership believe that Iraq had WMD? Yes.


I think this is highly dubious, as quoted in my previous post
Did the US have the legal authority under the UN to invade Iraq? Yes.


No, since all such decitions have to be cleared in the Security councel, which I believe they it was not. Taking the law in your own hands does not make it lawful. (like locking a guy up in your basement for ten years after you caught him beating someone)



It was taken as obvious that they had them.


Clearly not, no weapons had been found despite access to all places where intelligence claimed they might be, and a number of people did say they believed such was not the case.
Alot of people did, yes, but not all experts or anything of the sort.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Nihilena
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:34 am UTC

Postby Nihilena » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:59 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:A government's responsibility is to its people, not to other governments. Protecting its citizens through war is more important than protecting the sovereignty of hostile nations.

Does it escape you that Iraq had not attacked us? That Iraq had never shown any sort of aggression towards us? Yes, apparently Saddam had utilized chemical weapons against other (unarmed) people, but that is a matter that fits nicely into the jurisdiction of the United Nations, and certainly doesn't justify unilateral retribution many years after the fact.

Alternatively, if the US government acted appropriately in your view, what of every other nation in the world? Especially those with physical proximity to Iraq? Again, assuming Iraq did have WMDs, they lacked an effective delivery vehicle to use against north America.

Now, assuming that they deliver such an ordinance by irregular means, or came into possession of an effective delivery system, why would they use it? This is the one element that seems to escape every conservative alarmist. There was no reason for Iraq to attack us, simply because of the overwhelming conventional and (deities forbid) nuclear retribution we could bring upon them.

We were also economically tied to each other, but I suppose we'll see how spiteful their new leaders are after our troops leave the country.

I don't think U.S. occupation can be considered oppressive, if one takes the reference frame of occupations. It's certainly more oppressive than what we would want the rest of their lives to be, but I feel it's less oppressive than most occupations are, and we have stated from day 1 that we do not intend to stay.

Certainly, we have a vested interest in the safety and comfort of the Iraqi people, so far as the media is concerned. That said, I'd argue that martial law, curfew, and the sort of armed checkpoints which seem so popular there would seem very oppressive if implemented where you live, doubly so if impremented by a foreign power. The presense of armed people who are essentially immune to prosecution is never comfortable for the unarmed who can be tried.

Again, I'd agree that as occupations go, our's is intended to be relatively benevolent. That doesn't change the realities present for the people who must live under it.

One could argue that America should sacrifice its economic well-being out of a lack of desire to do military actions, but I don't think that's an argument many people would enjoy living under.

So you assert that the dollar value benefits that come from making a very expensive war on a nation very far away make right the military deaths, civilian deaths, and increased anti-American sentiment, to say nothing of the intangibles? I believe I know a few people who would enjoy living under a government that doesn't use its military to generate revenue, chief amongst them soldiers and people involved in peaceful industries.

Your statement here seems to indicate both that you're interested in open wars for profit and you subscribe to an economic model where the absense of war leads to some kind of negative economic consequence. Obviously, I disagree on both counts.

Well, first, France is a nuclear power. Messing with them is decidedly unwise. Second, we're a nuclear power. Messing with us is decidedly unwise. So, for both of us, anything besides diplomatic showdowns would be more damaging than it would be helpful.

I'd agree, except I wonder what your answer would be if France was not a nuclear power. If mutually assured destruction is the only thing governing our nation's foreign policy, I think it would have been better if Iraq had nuclear weapons as well.

That said, you seem to be in support of my earlier point, that Iraq would have never attacked us. If France is hesitant to enter into conflict with us as a peer-nation, wouldn't that hesitant nature be even more pronounced in Iraq, with its largely out-dated military?

A nontrivial part of it is overblown, but that always happens when you talk about outrage.

Overblown? Volunteers are following the self-interested orders of their high-superiors and dying for it. Uninvolved Iraqi citizens are dying for it as well, with each dead family member affirming the paradigm of America as the evil Western crusader nation.

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.us.dead.soldier.3.jpg

This is a picture of a dead soldier. I did an image search for "dead us soldier iraq". He probably had a family and all of that.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:33 am UTC

But you do not agree that this has been a miserable failure and that america now more likely to be attacked, not to mention the fact that a great number of Iraqi and American soldiers have died while doing this?
Oh, I think the war was botched. I never claimed otherwise. That said, just because it was done wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done right.

I think it comes down to this, Bush had to make an assesment of the facts, was Saddam able, was he willing, to cause serious harm?
The correct awnser was no
He thought yes, this is a failure right?
Depends on who we're talking harm to. Seeing as Bush is a 'compassionate' conservative, he may have a warm feeling in his heart for the Iraqi people (they're human too, you know), and so might have taken into account Saddam's (prodigious) ability to do them harm.

He has not served his people, even if he might have believe he was acting in their best interest.
But, the reasons why he has not served his people is not because he started this invasion. It is because he justified it under false pretenses, and executed it poorly.

This is BS
THIS... IS... HISTORY!!!! (sorry, I haven't done a 300 joke in a while)

Would you thinkit okey if someone raped and killed your mother and hten gave you whatever money she might effectively produce in the rest of her life?
This assumes that my mother's value to me is only based on the inheritance she will leave to me; that assumption is false. Economics takes into account the tangible effect of intangibles, you know.

Military actions can sometimes be morally suprior aswell, but do not confuse the two, just because it will earn you money does not mean it's good.
This assumes that it's better to live a scrupulous life than it is to live a rich life. I'm not sure that assumption is universal, and, in fact, would say the evidence suggests it is a minority view at best. And, as we all know, governments like to act in the interests of the majority.

Question: Do you think the human rights, or perhaps even the constitution, applies to, or rather, should apply to, everyone, or that they are reserved for yourself and other americans?
I'll answer this question in multiple ways.

First- American rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by the American constitution, only apply to American citizens. The only rights we have agreed to give everyone are the rights we swore to uphold in the Geneva Convention.

Second- Human rights? The only natural law is that might makes right. The only rights you have are the rights you can defend. Since it is tiresome for men to each defend their own rights, they band into governments who assure the rights of their constituents. Unless they are paying us taxes, they aren't our responsibility. (This one is inflammatory, and should be taken as an exaggeration of my actual view)

Third- Should they apply to everyone? Ideally, yes. But, I believe that with rights come responsibilities, and I do not feel that those who are unwilling to accept the responsibilities should gain the rights. I don't feel that we should grant those that we believe to be hostile to us all the rights we grant ourselves.

Invade saudi arabia then?
Because they are, ostensibly, our allies. I wouldn't mind if they got toppled and replaced by a democracy, but since they appear to nicest, they get to be replaced last.
Or iran?
Iran was sort of next on the list, although the entire strategy is being reconsidered given our pitfalls in Iraq. Why not do it first? It may have been wiser to.
Or China?
Because China is a nuclear power, and crucial to our economy. China appears to be slowly moving towards democracy, and a gradual shift will probably be better for it than an immediate one (read up on Russia's immediate shift to capitalism).
Or North Korea?
We should have gone after them before they started building faulty nukes. But, one only has so much time.

I do not see why one people have the right to force another under their rule.
Perhaps because it is for the long-term benefit of them all? Consider what Europe would be like without the Romans (or, any of the following nations with imperialist designs). They'd be sitting around in huts.

the real winners are the corporations getting the deals to rebuild the nation, but since they get payed by the goverment to do this, it's not a good deal
Really? The deals with 2% profit margins? They'd be better off sticking that money in a savings account.

Does it escape you that Iraq had not attacked us?
No, it doesn't. It does escape me why pre-emption is, by necessity, a bad strategy. (I'm not claiming a military attack on us was imminent; I'm claiming something detrimental to us was)

That Iraq had never shown any sort of aggression towards us?
Really? I find that hard to believe, given, you know, the entire first Gulf War. While that was aggression towards an ally, I would count that as aggression against us.

Again, assuming Iraq did have WMDs, they lacked an effective delivery vehicle to use against north America.
I assume you are assuming that a intercontinental missile is the only delivery method for a WMD.

An unmarked boat, or one pretending to be that of another country, can sail into a harbor (like, New York's) or up a river (like, say, the Potomac) and detonate its weapon, decimating a city just as effectively (if not more so) than one propelled by a missile would have.

why would they use it? This is the one element that seems to escape every conservative alarmist.
There are a few possible reasons:
1) They believe that it cannot be traced back to them, and that the U.S. will not declare war on the entire world.
2) They believe that it is their holy duty to do so (this one does not apply to Iraq, but I felt it appropriate to leave it on the list).
3) They believe that Americans will not use their nuclear weapons, regardless of whether or not those weapons are used against them, because of our 'soft-hearted' (to them, at least) disdain of WMDs.
4) They feel their destruction is imminent, and wish to go out with a bang.

That said, I'd argue that martial law, curfew, and the sort of armed checkpoints which seem so popular there would seem very oppressive if implemented where you live, doubly so if impremented by a foreign power.
Let's pretend for a minute that someone (oh, let's pick the Nazis, everybody likes them) invades America and wins. There are a few sets of conditions they could put forward:

Set A:
1) If you attack our troops, we will return fire on you, assuming there aren't any other civilians we might hit.
2) If you break curfew, you will be detained.
3) If you travel, you must have identification and obey the orders of checkpoint officials.
4) You may keep your personal possessions, as long as they are not looted or otherwise stolen.

Set B:
1) If you attack any of our troops, you will be killed.
2) If you break curfew, you will be killed.
3) If you travel, you must have identification and obey the orders of checkpoint officials.
4) Your property may be taken without warning or explanation.
5) If you are any of the following: (list of ethnicities and/or religions and/or sexual orientation), you are being transferred to another location. You will be rounded up and transported by train.

Set C:
1) Line up. It makes it easier to kill you all. Our people need your homes!

Given those sets, I'd prefer A. Now, I never said A wasn't oppressive compared to normal. I said it wasn't oppressive compared to wartime occupation.

The presense of armed people who are essentially immune to prosecution is never comfortable for the unarmed who can be tried.
Newsflash: War is uncomfortable.

That doesn't change the realities present for the people who must live under it.
I disagree. It doesn't change that there is discomfort and death; it drastically changes the level of discomfort and death.

So you assert that the dollar value benefits that come from making a very expensive war on a nation very far away make right the military deaths, civilian deaths, and increased anti-American sentiment, to say nothing of the intangibles?
Once again, I never said the Iraq war was going well, or that it, as a whole, was worth it (yet).
That said, I believe that many wars *are* beneficial, at least to those who win them.

Your statement here seems to indicate both that you're interested in open wars for profit and you subscribe to an economic model where the absense of war leads to some kind of negative economic consequence. Obviously, I disagree on both counts.
The first is an exaggeration of my belief, but it's close enough. The second isn't a belief I hold- I just believe there are situations in which war is preferable, not that it's always preferable.

If mutually assured destruction is the only thing governing our nation's foreign policy, I think it would have been better if Iraq had nuclear weapons as well.
And this is why Fuchs and others acted as they did. He asked about France, and so I gave an answer specific to France; I do not pretend to have quick and easy formulas that should determine our foreign policy.

Overblown?
I never said that all of it is overblown. Just that some it is is.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Nihilena
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:34 am UTC

Postby Nihilena » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:25 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
But you do not agree that this has been a miserable failure and that america now more likely to be attacked, not to mention the fact that a great number of Iraqi and American soldiers have died while doing this?
Oh, I think the war was botched. I never claimed otherwise. That said, just because it was done wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done right.

And how would this war have been done right? Failing that, what was the reason for going to war in the first place?

I think it comes down to this, Bush had to make an assesment of the facts, was Saddam able, was he willing, to cause serious harm?
The correct awnser was no
He thought yes, this is a failure right?
Depends on who we're talking harm to. Seeing as Bush is a 'compassionate' conservative, he may have a warm feeling in his heart for the Iraqi people (they're human too, you know), and so might have taken into account Saddam's (prodigious) ability to do them harm.

I think you're talking in jest here, otherwise you'd be contradicting the spirit of your own arguments.
He has not served his people, even if he might have believe he was acting in their best interest.
But, the reasons why he has not served his people is not because he started this invasion. It is because he justified it under false pretenses, and executed it poorly.

Exactly what pretenses would have been effective justifictation for a war against Iraq? In case you haven't noticed, this is my entire argument in a nutshell. There are other countries who have brutal dictators, other countries with WMDs, and other countries with an unpopular ethnic majority, yet we invaded Iraq and remade their government in our own image.
Military actions can sometimes be morally suprior aswell, but do not confuse the two, just because it will earn you money does not mean it's good.
This assumes that it's better to live a scrupulous life than it is to live a rich life. I'm not sure that assumption is universal, and, in fact, would say the evidence suggests it is a minority view at best. And, as we all know, governments like to act in the interests of the majority.

While I respect your honesty and willingness to express casual disdain for the suffering of those you are condemning here, I think you are a capitalist pig. Economics and government are not one in the same.
Invade saudi arabia then?
Because they are, ostensibly, our allies. I wouldn't mind if they got toppled and replaced by a democracy, but since they appear to nicest, they get to be replaced last.

Again while I respect your cavalier attitude here, you seem to be secure in our continued desire and ability to wage war. If I were a betting person, I'd not put any money on a pro-war representative being elected to the presidency.

That said, as a hypothetical, consider if Bush's administration were extended another twenty years, and he had public support for all of his actions. How many "regime changes" (read: imperialistic adventures) would it take before the other countries of the world began to unite in their own defense? Your confidence in this case is foolish.

I do not see why one people have the right to force another under their rule.
Perhaps because it is for the long-term benefit of them all? Consider what Europe would be like without the Romans (or, any of the following nations with imperialist designs). They'd be sitting around in huts.
So empire is justified because of our own cultural superiority? Or technological superiority? Either way, that particular argument sounds very much like something I'd mention if not for Godwin's Law.
the real winners are the corporations getting the deals to rebuild the nation, but since they get payed by the goverment to do this, it's not a good deal
Really? The deals with 2% profit margins? They'd be better off sticking that money in a savings account.
I don't pretend to know about the economics of a situation, but the nature of corruption doesn't really lend itself to transparent accounting.
Does it escape you that Iraq had not attacked us?
No, it doesn't. It does escape me why pre-emption is, by necessity, a bad strategy. (I'm not claiming a military attack on us was imminent; I'm claiming something detrimental to us was)

Like what?

That Iraq had never shown any sort of aggression towards us?
Really? I find that hard to believe, given, you know, the entire first Gulf War. While that was aggression towards an ally, I would count that as aggression against us.

I'm sorry, Kuwait is not America East. Neither is Israel, for that matter.

Again, assuming Iraq did have WMDs, they lacked an effective delivery vehicle to use against north America.
I assume you are assuming that a intercontinental missile is the only delivery method for a WMD.

That'd be incorrect, as I answered that in the next line I wrote...

why would they use it? This is the one element that seems to escape every conservative alarmist.
There are a few possible reasons:
1) They believe that it cannot be traced back to them, and that the U.S. will not declare war on the entire world.

I don't believe that anyone is really that stupid. Even in the unrealistic scenario that we were unable to determine who attacked us, we'd attribute the blame to whatever nation or group was most suspicious.
2) They believe that it is their holy duty to do so (this one does not apply to Iraq, but I felt it appropriate to leave it on the list).

You're right, it doesn't apply to Iraq. But it does apply insofar that it is the same sort of fuzzy logic that most of America currently subscribes to.
3) They believe that Americans will not use their nuclear weapons, regardless of whether or not those weapons are used against them, because of our 'soft-hearted' (to them, at least) disdain of WMDs.

This is accurate, but irrelevant. We have conventional weapons in abundance.
4) They feel their destruction is imminent, and wish to go out with a bang.

While I think this is also unrealistic, what could possibly be to blame for such a mindset amongst nations who are not at war with us?
That said, I'd argue that martial law, curfew, and the sort of armed checkpoints which seem so popular there would seem very oppressive if implemented where you live, doubly so if impremented by a foreign power.
Let's pretend for a minute that someone (oh, let's pick the Nazis, everybody likes them) invades America and wins. There are a few sets of conditions they could put forward:

Set A:
1) If you attack our troops, we will return fire on you, assuming there aren't any other civilians we might hit.
2) If you break curfew, you will be detained.
3) If you travel, you must have identification and obey the orders of checkpoint officials.
4) You may keep your personal possessions, as long as they are not looted or otherwise stolen.

Set B:
1) If you attack any of our troops, you will be killed.
2) If you break curfew, you will be killed.
3) If you travel, you must have identification and obey the orders of checkpoint officials.
4) Your property may be taken without warning or explanation.
5) If you are any of the following: (list of ethnicities and/or religions and/or sexual orientation), you are being transferred to another location. You will be rounded up and transported by train.

Set C:
1) Line up. It makes it easier to kill you all. Our people need your homes!

Given those sets, I'd prefer A. Now, I never said A wasn't oppressive compared to normal. I said it wasn't oppressive compared to wartime occupation.

Godwin again aside, I'd agree that living under American occupation is preferable to Nazi occupation.

The presense of armed people who are essentially immune to prosecution is never comfortable for the unarmed who can be tried.
Newsflash: War is uncomfortable.

I was actually thinking about police when I wrote that... anyway, I agree.

That doesn't change the realities present for the people who must live under it.
I disagree. It doesn't change that there is discomfort and death; it drastically changes the level of discomfort and death.

Perhaps you mean "amount", not level, as death seems to be of the same severity in all cases. Either way, again I agree that America has intended to make its presence as painless as possible. That is perhaps of little consequence to the unlucky people who have died, and their families and friends. The question of numbers and intent is little solace for them.

So you assert that the dollar value benefits that come from making a very expensive war on a nation very far away make right the military deaths, civilian deaths, and increased anti-American sentiment, to say nothing of the intangibles?
Once again, I never said the Iraq war was going well, or that it, as a whole, was worth it (yet).

Alright, so we agree... I'm curious as to what plausible future event could redeem the war at this point. Did you have anything in mind?
Your statement here seems to indicate both that you're interested in open wars for profit and you subscribe to an economic model where the absense of war leads to some kind of negative economic consequence. Obviously, I disagree on both counts.
The first is an exaggeration of my belief, but it's close enough. The second isn't a belief I hold- I just believe there are situations in which war is preferable, not that it's always preferable.

Well then, in regards to the first, would you supporting the less-than-open wars for profit?


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests