Looks like Saddam's victims were more numerous than many thought...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/international/middleeast/15graves.html?ei=5065&en=c85059724268b94e&ex=1114228800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

Thats just bad. I didnt realize they had found so many new graves over the last few months. Bleh.

But hey, he didn't have any connection to terrorism, or weapons of mss destruction. He was just a regular ordinary mass murdering fuck head so we should have left him alone....

One more reason I'm glad we took him out.

Halo incoming to remind us that the USA is the Devil in 3, 2, 1...

Well yeah, but nobody actually said "we're going in there to take him out because he was a murdering sonofabitch", I mean, we had ample chance for years.
It was all "Yeah he liek is a terrorist and hes part of alkaeda and liek has weapons of mas$ terrorism."

ps the US is the devil.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_03.gif

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_05.gif

Well yeah, but nobody actually said "we're going in there to take him out because he was a murdering sonofabitch", I mean, we had ample chance for years.

It wasn't really my intention to go over this again, but would it have made *any* difference if anyone had said that? I don't think so. Too many people/countries had a vested financial interest in keeping Saddam in power and the argument against a war would still have been exactly the same...it was "illegal" because a bought off Security Council would not act against him.

It wasn't really my intention to go over this again, but would it have made *any* difference if anyone had said that?

The difference is that it would have set a precedent. If the US takes out one dictator just because he is abusing his own people then the US will have to take them all out and become the world police.

Even if that might be The Right Thing To Do, who will finance it?

The difference is that it would have set a precedent. If the US takes out one dictator just because he is abusing his own people then the US will have to take them all out and become the world police.

I don't see the difference myself. The US did set a precedent, doing what it felt needed to be done regardless of what the UN Security Council thought.

Any single country acting as the world's policeman is a physical impossibility, but that does not mean that you ignore what you can correct just because you can't correct everything.

I was just pointing out to Halo that the "reason given" for the invasion really had no effect on who would oppose it and who would not. The Security Council was unwilling to physically act against Saddam no matter what he had done because three of the five members needed/wanted him to remain in power for their own interests. Given that situation, no "legal" authorization that would satisfy many of the naysayers in the UN was possible regardless of what Saddam did.

Your naiveté Elemak is not only scary, it’s dangerous. There are many reasons to go to war. Going to war because a dictator or tyrant slaughtered 190,000 (plus any recent discoveries, of course) Kurds, Shiites, and Kuwaitis and hundreds of human rights violations are definitely one reason that would be extremely acceptable in my eyes.

However, that’s clearly not the reason we went to war.

We should go to war over Genocide. I really think we should, the slaughtering of people for ethnic or religious or political affiliation is horrible. In my eyes George Bush Sr. did the right thing when he brought his troops into the Gulf to protect Kuwait from the Iraqi military invasion. Kudos to Clinton for getting involved in Somalia with their 100,000 Somalis who perished under political persecution. However, Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. Our government has room to improve in this regard ... but to pretend thats what we did instead of realizing that there were extreme economic interests to the Bush Family's personal wealth as well as to the upper eshelon of the country.

Today the slaughter of over probably close to a million Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda continues to run rampantly out of control. In Nigeria, with over 1 million Ibos, Tiv, Hausa, Yoruba, Ogoni all killed over religious, political, or ethnic causes from 1966 to the present. We don’t get involved in Africa like we do Iraq, why? We certainly are willing to work towards getting Iraq debt cancellation under the theory that “no country that has ever amassed debt under a dictator should have to pay back that debt” when the same theory would cover all of Africa and we don’t get involved there.

Clearly, Elemak, if you didn’t understand what I wrote above you’ll understand the basic math.

China: 1949 to Present – 35 million deaths for “Class Enemies”, religious minorities, Muslims and Christians
Afghanistan: 1996 to Present – 60,000 deaths through political and national skirmishes as well as religious persecution
Iraq: 1961 to Present – 190,000(plus) Kurds, Shiites, Kuwaitis
Burundi: 1959 to 1988 – 200,000 Hutus
1993 to Present – 250,000+ Tutsis, Hutus
Rwanda: 1993 to Present – 900,000+ Tutsis, Hutus
Angola: 1975 to Present – 500,000 Umbundu, Ovimbundu
Nigeria: 1966 to 1970, 2000 to Present – 1,000,000 Ibos, Tiv, Hausa, Yoruba, Ogoni, and others

Horribly, there’s hundreds more. Now let’s assume for a second that the “real” reason we went to Iraq was to defend people’s freedoms. Why then, have we as a country not gotten involved in a takeover of China to stop their religious persecution? Why haven’t we gone to Nigeria or dealt with the Rwanda Genocides?

No matter how you look at it, the government screwed the pooch. They are either horrible KKK wannabe bigots that hate black people ... or they lied to us and totally duped people who have no means of free thought into believing they were there on a mission of peace when the reality is there’s a lot more at $take.

I don't see the difference myself. The US did set a precedent, doing what it felt needed to be done regardless of what the UN Security Council thought.Then why misinform? If you want to do something you think is right, why lie about the reason?

Let agree that UN council didn't follow even if the reason given was "remove a tyran masskilling his own people". US would still have mass people opinion on their side. And we all know what pressure people can put on their governement (see Spain).

It was the right thing to do (I need to do a search on what is/has happening/ed to Saddam btw), don't get me wrong. It was poorly brought to international community, to say the least.

Kelraz, your point is a good one, but China isn't the best example. There are a number of reasons why we don't step in regarding Tibet and China's human rights record. Darfur, OTOH, is a salient, and very current, example of a humanitarian disaster screaming for international intervention.

Then why misinform? If you want to do something you think is right, why lie about the reason?

You are making an assumption that they *were* lying about their reason. I think it's clear they really believed Saddam had stashed WMDs (he certainly encouraged that view, hoping it would keep everyone scared of overthrowing him). If he had stashed them, it was a very good reason. It was just not the *only* reason, since Saddam was such a douchebag he provided any number of reasons to get rid of him. IMO if they *knew* he had no weapons it would have been politically suicidal to attack anyway using that excuse. Look at how much crap they have taken as a result. Do you *really* think they did it on purpose?

As far as saving lives making a difference in world opinion (and therefore actions), since when? I don't see anyone else in the world stepping up to stop killing in any of the other places mentioned in this thread. Even in current places like Darfur, the rich and powerful nations are unwilling to intercede except with rhetoric. The African Union troops in Darfur are for show only, they have no orders to actually fight to stop any killing.

Why Iraq and not Rwanda? Clearly because Iraq is astride the oil that keeps our country running and Rwanda has squat that we can't do without. Modern economies are like junkies, if you endanger their supply they get nasty. It's not just the oil barons we are talking about here, it is *all* aspects of modern economies. We are willing to spend some of our lives to maintain the quality of life for our people but we are less willing to spend our lives for the good of strangers who often turn against us (like Somalia). We'll help if its relatively cheap and not too inconvenient, but not at the cost of too many of our own lives. We pick our battles as do *all* countries. Look how strained the military is with just *one* fight on it's hands. How can anyone hope to handle several places like that at one time?

You are making an assumption that they *were* lying about their reason. I think it's clear they really believed Saddam had stashed WMDs...
Looking at how the intelligence on the matter was gathered, parsed, and interpreted, I think they *wanted* there to be WMDs, and that desire informed their conclusions. The administration lied to itself, perhaps subconsciously, or perhaps deciding that -- while the evidence wasn't particularly solid -- the conventional wisdom held that Saddam had or was in advanced development of those sorts of weapons. And there was oil. And there was the possibility of creating a puppet government (preferably headed by Ahmed Chalabi), giving the US primary access to that oil and a launch pad for other possible Middle East operations. And there was revenge for the attempted assassination of Bush Sr.

The odds looked to be in their favor, and so decisions were made.

There is actually a lot of oil in Nigeria too ...

Not that the war has done anything good for gas prices. Its done the reverse.

While the war did raise gas prices, increased demand from India and China have had just as great an effect (along with speculation on the part of investors) and are a longer term influence overall. Even if Iraq starts producing at its capacity and ANWR is tapped (both of which will take years), expect oil prices to continue to increase. Read up on "peak oil" to see where we're headed.

No matter how you look at it, the government screwed the pooch. They are either horrible KKK wannabe bigots that hate black people ... or they lied to us and totally duped people who have no means of free thought into believing they were there on a mission of peace when the reality is there’s a lot more at $take.


KKK wannabe bigots that hate black people?

That is the most retarded statement regarding the current administration I have ever heard.

Clinton went into Somalia and Kosovo. Bush went into Iraq. I honestly believe that Bush is stupid enough to buy the "WMD" excuse.

I believe we had a right to go into Afghanistan, and I believe that if we had put the same amount of troop strength, and effort into Afghanistan, then we would have caught Osama already.

Bush had no trouble to get the public support for Afghanistan either, liberals and republicans both agreed that we should invade Afghanistan.

So why Iraq?

It sure as hell wasn't planned to go in and "liberate" the Iraqi people. But after the truth about the "WMD" excused was publicized, Bush needed a new excused to keep troops in Iraq. He is too prideful to admit he was wrong. It is NOT a "world police" humanitarian mission, that was simply an afterthought.

When I was in Iraq, our daily missions being handed to us were not humanitarian. They were "seek-and-destroy" the enemy. We would simply patrol the streets looking for "terrorists" as Bush likes to call them, and kill them.

The sad part is most of these "terrorists" were former Iraqi military soldiers who, when Bush disbanded their Army shortly after we took control, had no jobs, and nothing to do. Others are just extremists from the neighboring countries coming through the pourous border that we should have had 200,000 more troops shut down.

This whole thing is a complete disaster, and Bush is insane to think that any good will come of it.

The point you are missing is that we do not claim to be, nor are we the worlds police. It is simply a convienient excuse for those in power whenever the shit hits the fan.

"Uhh, we are just trying to free the Iraqi people, and install a democracy"

Right...

Travesty, I suggest you reread my quote and try again. You clearly missed it.

Found this little jewel in my rep counter
reading comprehension, that quote you took was a joke implying there were clearly alterior motives!

Gee, I didn't know you were an english teacher Kelraz. If that was meant to be a joke, then it was the most retarded joke I have ever heard. Is that better?

The reason we went in there was simply the fact that Bush's "war on terror" needed a enemy to hate. Instead of faceless men, broadly labeled as terrorists for all sorts of various reasons, he brought Saddam back to the front page of the news.

Honestly, as quickly as we went into Iraq after 9-11, you think it was because Bush decided we were gonna suddenly spread peace and democracy? Right after we just got nailed in our own backyard?

Bush wanted to pick a fight. So he chose the usual suspect, Saddam. When his "WMD" excuse didn't hold up, he suddenly comes up with the "spread peace and democracy throughout the arab region" rhetoric. But at this point it wouldn't have mattered if he said, "okay, the WMD excuse didn't work, I really just wanted to kick someones ass after 9-11" We were too far in by then. You can't trample a society, and then just pull your troops out. So now we are obligated to re-build their society, and naturally, Bush is going to seize the oppurtunity to install his own puppets in the new "democratic" Iraqi government.

Having been there, I can say that 90% of the troops I talked to in Fallujah, Karballah, and Baghdad did not believe Bush's lies about the WMD's. They knew why we were there, and most just wanted to get the job done, so they can go home.

War is good business. Lots of people get rich during wartime which helps the economy. Heck, if it was not for WWII, the US economy would have still been mired in the Great Depression. War also sways mass popular opinion. There is not greater opportunity to manipulate people's emotions and decision making processes when there is a war to fight (or oppose) and an enemy to hate. It takes our minds off how fucked up things may or may not be at home, just as a magician distracts your eyes during a magic show. For others it should serve as an eye opener.

If we went to war for oil, then why are more people taking mass transit than ever since they can no longer afford to drive without taking a major lifestyle hit? If we want cheaper gas than perhaps we should hijack every tanker bound for China full of crude, since their hunger for it has driven up the overall global demand exponentially, and thus, the price.

Perhaps Bush will be the one that ultimately makes us wake up and realize that the real problem in the world is petroleum (but terrorism is a bigger and better headline catcher) and how we have all our eggs in one basket as far as its use as our principle energy source. Everyone wants it and there is not enough to go around anymore. So we grab Iraq and give ourselves a bandaid of cheap go-juice until something better comes along as an energy source or we can convince ourselves that we really don't need that V10 powered Excursion for our 100 mile round trip drive from the exurbs to work. Saddam was just a very effective scapegoat. Yah he was a murdering asshole, but because of that he had enough of the world convinced that he did not deserve that huge ocean of black gold his shitty little hell hole of a nation floats around on. El Presidente Bush II, Champion for Freedom by image and perhaps by accident, but he may also save the entire global economy from collapse just by being a pure and selfish asshole. If the US economy which is a rather complex house of cards, tanks, than the global economy is dragged down with it. As long as the oil flows and the US economy for which it powers hums along, than everyone wins since the US seems to buy everything everyone else produces.

If we want to have cheaper gas then the US needs to get off it;s ass and help oil companies build some refineries.. What there are 6 or so in the US and they don't proccess at full capacity. There is plenty of oil for us just no effective way to get it to market. Turning middle east to glass and building Wal-marts still seems viable at this point.

Another option would be if the US oil companies were to direct a larger percentage of their sales to their own country, rather than Asian markets where they seek more profit.

Here is the text of a memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) from a meeting held 8 months before the Iraq war between Tony Blair and his advisors. An article discussing the memo is here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html). A key quote:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Emphasis mine.