Iraq Anniversary; Your opinions on the war?

[scott:mac]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.anniversary/index.html


6 Years to the day that the war in Iraq began...


What are your views on the War, Do you think its right?
Personally I think the job isn't done, And will not be anytime soon

US and British troops try to maintain a peaceful Iraq, Training police and miltary, But can the Iraqi forces hold Iraq from the force of the Taliban?

[edesignuk]

But can the Iraqi forces hold Iraq from the force of the Taliban?Doubtful :(

If tens of thousands of highly trained troops have trouble, a new and relativity amateurish "force" doesn't seem to stand a hope.

[Cromulent]

US and British troops try to maintain a peaceful Iraq, Training police and miltary, But can the Iraqi forces hold Iraq from the force of the Taliban?

Taliban? Since when were they in Iraq?

[freeny]

Taliban? Since when were they in Iraq?

+1

[leekohler]

Taliban? Since when were they in Iraq?

Yep- that's Afghanistan, where we should have been focusing all along.

[Rt&Dzine]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed, Washington Post
The staff report [The Sept. 11 commission] said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Bin Laden called Hussein and his regime infidels. Did we do the Taliban a favor by removing Hussein?

[és:]

Yep- that's Afghanistan, where we should have been focusing all along.

:mad:


As for the Iraq war... I'm just glad it was easy as John McCain said it would be and that it only took 6 weeks. Well worth it.

[Burnsey]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed, Washington Post


Bin Laden called Hussein and his regime infidels. Did we do the Taliban a favor by removing Hussein?

They've said similar things about the Iranians, so it looks like the Taliban/Alqaeda are going to receive some more favors.

[Shivetya]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile. We allowed too many millions to die after not finishing the job during the first war. The real pity is that no one else in the world did anything for either Iraq or Afghanistan before this. The same can be said for many African countries.

A quote I really like sums it up for me

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

[és:]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile.

Why was it worthwhile? What has been achieved?

[Cromulent]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile. We allowed too many millions to die after not finishing the job during the first war.

Millions? Care to provide a source for that claim?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

No one ever said they were not prepared to fight for anything they just said that the Iraq was a foolish venture based on faulty thinking, which was later shown to be true.

[.Andy]

It's a major blight on the countries of the "coalition of the willing" and I hope the aggression and futility is reflected on forever.

War truly is the most absolute moronic exercise.



"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"
The true brave don't fight with violence. The true brave don't fall for patriotic rhetoric. The most miserable creature of all and the least patriotic and moral is he who calls for a war and for others to fight it. War is the most ugly of things by a long shot. Everybody loses and pays too high a price.

[Cromulent]

It's a major blight on the western world that I hope is remembered forever with guilt.

In much the same was as the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in WWII I hope.

[skunk]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile. We allowed too many millions to die after not finishing the job during the first war.What "job" was that? Destroying the regime you had been backing with arms, AWACS and political support for ten years in a proxy war with Iran? Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers for their reprisal raid into Kuwait, which had been stealing their oil using diagonal drilling equipment supplied by a corporation connected to your President?
The real pity is that no one else in the world did anything for either Iraq or Afghanistan before this.No, the real shame is that your half-witted and ignorant dogma-driven Administration was so clueless as to stick their oar in where others had more wisely abstained, and that people like you count the resultant carnage and slaughter "worthwhile".
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"A tragically misguided sentiment. War is utterly pointless.

[hulugu]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile. We allowed too many millions to die after not finishing the job during the first war. The real pity is that no one else in the world did anything for either Iraq or Afghanistan before this. The same can be said for many African countries.

A quote I really like sums it up for me

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

"All action is for the sake of some end; and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are subservient. " —*John Stuart Mill.

Also, and I just stumbled upon this quote also by Mill, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

[WinterMute]

What "job" was that? Destroying the regime you had been backing with arms, AWACS and political support for ten years in a proxy war with Iran? Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers for their reprisal raid into Kuwait, which had been stealing their oil using diagonal drilling equipment supplied by a corporation connected to your President?


Clearly the war was worth it for Rumsfeld et al, whose commercial interests continue to reap the benefits of the civil engineering projects that rebuild the shattered capability of the country.

Odd that it didn't need rebuilding beforehand, but there you go.

The war was certainly worth it as live-test bed and proving ground for a large number of military systems and acted as the reason for the perpetuation of huge "defence" budget spends from the allies.

Oh, sure this war was worth it.

[MacNut]

A tragically misguided sentiment. War is utterly pointless.Are you saying every war ever fought or just the one in Iraq?

[scott:mac]

Taliban? Since when were they in Iraq?

The Taliban are spread over the world, There are MOST living in Pakistan of all places.

Pakistan are the main source of Taliban, Being it is smack in the middle of the Mid-East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan

So, The Taliban may be in Iraq, If Iraq goes sour then im sure the Taliban will spread into everywhere possible where there is little Resistance (Armed Presence).

If they aren't there already
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."
-Herbert Hoover "

[.Andy]

"All action is for the sake of some end; and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are subservient. " —*John Stuart Mill.

Also, and I just stumbled upon this quote also by Mill, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
Haha good quotes :). Harriet Taylor was awesome.

[Blue Velvet]

Pakistan are the main source of Taliban, Being it is smack in the middle of the Mid-East.

Oh dear.

[skunk]

Are you saying every war ever fought or just the one in Iraq?I am inclined to think the former.

[skunk]

Oh dear.You've been looking at your atlas again, haven't you? :)

[MacNut]

I am inclined to think the former.If we don't fight any wars in our history we won't evolve. War is not pretty but sometimes it is necessary.

[Blue Velvet]

You've been looking at your atlas again, haven't you? :)

Nah. Google Streetview Taliban Edition™.

[Cromulent]

Pakistan are the main source of Taliban, Being it is smack in the middle of the Mid-East.

Pakistan is not in the Middle East.

[scott:mac]

Oh Dear?

Ah, I didnt mean that racist or controversial.

It is a fact though, Because of reasons i will not go into.


"But for the past seven years Pakistan has been the main provider of military supplies, fuel and food to the Taliban army, and Pakistani officers have advised the Taliban on their military campaigns. Over the same period, up to 60,000 Pakistani Islamic students, three-quarters of whom were educated in Pakistani madrassahs, or religious schools, have fought in Afghanistan for the Taliban". - www.thenation.com

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/rashid

[Peterkro]

If we don't fight any wars in our history we won't evolve. War is not pretty but sometimes it is necessary.

Good theory any evidence to back it up, I thought not.

[scott:mac]

Oh, And well....

It is technically...
Its in the East, Near the middle.

It is directly underneath Afghanistan.

[MacNut]

Good theory any evidence to back it up, I thought not.So you are saying we should let government get too strong and rule our lives forever? Imagine if we didn't fight WWI. Or the civil war. Where would we be. If we didn't ever wage war we would still be looking up to the queen.

[Macky-Mac]

the iraq war is a fine example of people not knowing what they're talking about

[és:]

If we don't fight any wars in our history we won't evolve.

Which wars have made you evolve? You fight to defend yourself or to win your freedom, not for evolution. Certainly not in Iraq, that is for sure.

[MacNut]

Which wars have made you evolve?I mean looking throughout history. We evolve as a people. If we never had war in our history what would we be doing right now? Would we be free.

[Gelfin]

You've been looking at your atlas again, haven't you? :)

Oh dear.

Nah. Google Streetview Taliban Edition™.

Pakistan is not in the Middle East.

You nitpickers from the middle of Europe are all alike.

[.Andy]

Imagine if we didn't fight WWI. Or the civil war.
If we had the intelligence, courage, and ethics to avoid war at all costs we'd be lightyears ahead of where we are now.

[NT1440]

I mean looking throughout history. We evolve as a people. If we never had war in our history what would we be doing right now? Would we be free.

So starting wars with other people for no reason is good because.....


I for one am anti war, any war.

[MacNut]

If we had the intelligence, courage, and ethics to avoid war at all costs we'd be lightyears ahead of where we are now.We are human not machines. Someone will always wage war and we will always have to defend.

[MacNut]

So starting wars with other people for no reason is good because.....


I for one am anti war, any war.That may be good in principal but that is not practical. We will always have to defend against evil who want to rule the world.

Should we have rolled over and let Hitler do as he pleased?

[és:]

I mean looking throughout history. We evolve as a people. If we never had war in our history what would we be doing right now? Would we be free.

If anything, war has held us back.

[Blue Velvet]

Someone will always wage war and we will always have to defend.

Sorry, but who exactly waged war against the US in Iraq? Or for that matter, Vietnam? Or even Grenada? Are you saying these were defensive military actions?

[scott:mac]

We are human not machines. Someone will always wage war and we will always have to defend.

Unless we become the very evil we swear to defend from.

And "they" will be defending from "We" "Us".

[MacNut]

Sorry, but who exactly waged war against the US in Iraq? Or for that matter, Vietnam? Or even Grenada? Are you saying these were defensive military actions?I didn't say all wars were justified, but there were those that were. Are you saying that every war ever faught was wrong?

[scott:mac]

Sorry, but who exactly waged war against the US in Iraq? Or for that matter, Vietnam? Or even Grenada? Are you saying these were defensive military actions?

9/11. Was an attack on the US.

9/7. Was an attack on the UK.

So on and so forth.

[és:]

I for one am anti war, any war.

I hate war. I am for a defensive force. If you have to defend yourself, your country and her citizens then you just have to do what you have to do.

[NT1440]

I didn't say all wars were justified, but there were those that were. Are you saying that every war ever faught was wrong?

All war is wrong. Some sadly we have to get involved in, but again, all war is wrong.

[és:]

9/11. Was an attack on the US.

9/7. Was an attack on the UK.

So on and so forth.

Which country attacked us?

How many of the attackers were from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even if they were all from Iraq and Afghanistan, that doesn't excuse attacking their countries and slaughtering their innocent civilians in their masses.

[MacNut]

All war is wrong. Some sadly we have to get involved in, but again, all war is wrong.I am not saying it is right but sometimes it is necessary. In a perfect world we would all be happy and never fight.

[.Andy]

We are human not machines. Someone will always wage war and we will always have to defend.
Rubbish. As humans we have the ability to learn and reason.

[scott:mac]

I hate war. I am for a defensive force. If you have to defend yourself, your country and her citizens then you just have to do what you have to do.

The British and US Armies act as a Deterrent Service.

Only in wartime are they used as an "Attacking Force"

[NT1440]

That may be good in principal but that is not practical. We will always have to defend against evil who want to rule the world.

Should we have rolled over and let Hitler do as he pleased?

When was the last time there was a superpower in the world that seemed intent on taking over? Oh yea....us:o

Better question, who is trying to take over the US right now?

[MacNut]

Rubbish. As humans we have the ability to learn and reason.Over 3000 years when has that happened?

[NT1440]

Over 3000 years when has that happened?

Anyone else snicker at that timeframe?

[MacNut]

When was the last time there was a superpower in the world that seemed intent on taking over? Oh yea....us:o

Better question, who is trying to take over the US right now?We want to take over the world? Since when?

[MacNut]

Anyone else snicker at that timeframe?I didn't know the Roman Empire was last week. We are a human race, we are not perfect and we never will be. We will always fight. Unless the cave men were having tea parties Im sure they fought. It could be last week or the beginning of time, we always fought over something.

[NT1440]

We want to take over the world? Since when?

Invading other countries to get back for 9/11, wait i mean taking down saddam, oh shoot, no what is it this week? oh yea "spreading freedom".......


I'm talking about invading Iraq.

[és:]

The British and US Armies act as a Deterrent Service.

Only in wartime are they used as an "Attacking Force"

Yes, but they are meant to be a defensive force only. They should never initiate an attack and start a war. There is a massive difference. It is OK to say 'only in wartime' but it is the one that initiates the war that is the attacking force.

[MacNut]

Invading other countries to get back for 9/11, wait i mean taking down saddam, oh shoot, no what is it this week? oh yea "spreading freedom".......


I'm talking about invading Iraq.Invading Iraq was not taking over the world was it?

[NT1440]

Invading Iraq was not taking over the world was it?

Seems like a great first step if our justification for invasion is simply going to be "spreading freedom" we could go anywhere. Well not anymore actually, our monkey boy is out of office.

[.Andy]

Over 3000 years when has that happened?
Are you saying that over 3000 war has never been avoided?

We are a human race, we are not perfect and we never will be.
Funny you don't take this "human nature" line of reasoning in other threads....

[Blue Velvet]

We want to take over the world? Since when?

If you truly have no clue about American hegemony in fields from commerce, finance, arms supply and global politics... including its landgrab for resources for most of the last century, then you're more utterly bereft of clues than I previously imagined.

[Peterkro]

Invading Iraq was not taking over the world was it?

What are the 700 (seven hundred) US bases in other nations for? to allow self determination and choice for the inhabitants? I don't think so.

[MacNut]

If you truly have no clue about American hegemony in fields from commerce, finance, arms supply and global politics... including its landgrab for resources for most of the last century, then you're more utterly bereft of clues than I previously imagined.Are you saying that America is the only country to do this?

[scott:mac]

Which country attacked us?

How many of the attackers were from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even if they were all from Iraq and Afghanistan, that doesn't excuse attacking their countries and slaughtering their innocent civilians in their masses.

We are not attacking the country (Afghanistan) we are attacking the Taliban who are situated in Afghanistan (Leaders).

We are in Iraq for peacekeeping, We train their Police and Military to control and act as a Deterrent for themselves.
Which is finished.

HENCE why Barack Obama is pulling the troops from Iraq.

[NT1440]

Are you saying that America is the only country to do this?

Why is the "other guys do it too" reasoning even considered a defense for it?

Its not right regardless of who does it.

And where did anyone even say that? Your just dodging the accusations as always.

[MacNut]

What are the 700 (seven hundred) US bases in other nations for? to allow self determination and choice for the inhabitants? I don't think so.So we should just pull every base all over the world?

[Peterkro]

So we should just pull every base all over the world?

Yes.

[Blue Velvet]

We are not attacking the country (Afghanistan) we are attacking the Taliban who are situated in Afghanistan (Leaders).

We are in Iraq for peacekeeping, We train their Police and Military to control and act as a Deterrent for themselves.
Which is finished.

HENCE why Barack Obama is pulling the troops from Iraq.


You haven't yet explained what the Taliban had to with Iraq. I'm looking forward to it.

[NT1440]

We are in Iraq for peacekeeping, We train their Police and Military to control and act as a Deterrent for themselves.
Which is finished.

HENCE why Barack Obama is pulling the troops from Iraq.
Thats ENTIRELY after the fact, and its not why we went in there at all.

We dont actually know why we invaded iraq (other than bush being a dick) because they changed the reasons what, 4 times now?

[scott:mac]

Thats ENTIRELY after the fact, and its not why we went in there at all.

We dont actually know why we invaded iraq (other than bush being a dick) because they changed the reasons what, 4 times now?

I see your point.

Who knows...WMDs? Peacekeeping? Taliban Arms and Leaders?

Lies?
Oil?

Does this crumble your faith in your government?****

**** Previous Government

[és:]

We are not attacking the country (Afghanistan) we are attacking the Taliban who are situated in Afghanistan (Leaders).

The Taliban did not attack us. The many, many civilians that have died didn't attack us. No Afghani attacked us.

We are in Iraq for peacekeeping

Well, we're pretty **** at it, because we've killed a million people.

HENCE why Barack Obama is pulling the troops from Iraq.

Barack Obama can be quiet when it comes to our troops.

[NT1440]

I see your point.

Who knows...WMDs? Peacekeeping? Taliban Arms and Leaders?

Lies?
Oil?

Does this crumble your faith in your government?

Ive never had much faith in my government, but its the only one Ive got, and im glad its getting better.

Its still not right.

[Blue Velvet]

Are you saying that America is the only country to do this?

This is a clearcut admission that America's wars are not defensive, as you earlier claimed.

Give it up. No-one is fooled. Thrown shoes instead of flowers.

[skunk]

Taliban Arms and Leaders?NOT in Iraq.

[scott:mac]

Give it up. No-one is fooled. Thrown shoes instead of flowers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

[SmartIndianKid]

This is a clearcut admission that America's wars are not defensive, as you earlier claimed.

Give it up. No-one is fooled. Thrown shoes instead of flowers.

America's last legitimate war had a reason. Sadly, that was World War II.

[scott:mac]

War doesnt have to come from Direct Attack.

1939 Germany didnt Attack the US directly nor the UK.


They attacked Allies, Which is why UK is at war with the al-Qaeda "NOT Afghanistan or Iraq".

They attacked Allies.

[és:]

al-Qaeda did.

Correct. So now that we have established that No afghani, no Iraqi and no Taliban member attacked us, can you give justification for illegally invading and occupying iraq slaughtering a million iraqis and killing many, many afghani civilians.

The Taliban protect terrorists and fight against us.

Of course they fight against us, we've moved into their country and tried to kill them. What did you want them to do? Shoot themselves in the head?

Unreal.

[MacNut]

This is a clearcut admission that America's wars are not defensive, as you earlier claimed.

Give it up. No-one is fooled. Thrown shoes instead of flowers.Did I once say that the Iraq war was right?

[és:]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

You've quoted something I didn't say.

[Rt&Dzine]

Yeah, I think it was worthwhile.

Halliburton would certainly agree with you ... and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton until last year) is by far the largest contractor in Iraq, with an estimated $16 billion in contracts. They also avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in the Cayman Islands.

What a coincidence that Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive.

[xUKHCx]

You've quoted something I didn't say.

I fixed the wrongly attributed quote.

[scott:mac]

Sorry Velvet.

Personal Error on my part.
=]

Noone can justify the War.
And noone can Unjustify it.
It is opinions and "Facts".

There will always be someone who disagrees.

[és:]

War doesnt have to come from Direct Attack.

1939 Germany didnt Attack the US directly nor the UK.


They attacked Allies, Which is why UK is at war with the al-Qaeda "NOT Afghanistan or Iraq".

They attacked Allies.

With respect, you don't really know what you're going on about, do you?

[scott:mac]

I am seriously OVER tired.

I don't know up from down at the moment.

I think I need some sleep.

Night.
[Ive been working on a project for 3 days straight]

[Tesselator]

Iraq (http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm) Anniversary; Your opinions on the war?

What a waste of human life!
How many children will no longer play in front of their houses?
How many mothers will not be able to call them home for dinner?
How many wives will no longer be kissing their husbands bye to work?
How many Dads will not ever be teaching their kids how to throw a ball or ride a bike?
How many husbands will not be able to watch heir families grow or offer love and support?

Almost two million because of the embargo. Mostly children under 13.
Around one million two hundred thousand died as a result of stray bullets, bombs, and etc. just since 2003.

That's a lot of mommies, daddies, babies, little brothers and sisters! And for what?

Control of some oil fields.
Strategic military location for potentially killing more people in China and/or Russia.
To keep the US Dollar strong for a little longer.
Dick's Haliburton made billions perhaps trillions -> from our tax pockets into their bank accounts almost directly.
Blackwater now renamed to Xe or something gay, made billions.
We got Home Land Security headed up by some russian communist criminal which now patrols and regulates the American people
And let's not forget the 800 FEMA camps scattered across the USA in ready and waiting (for what?).

How many of those millions who died in Iraq were actually a threat to anyone in the USA? Some number between zero and a dozen or so.

Who blew up the World Trade Towers? According to the news they were all Saudi Arabians hiding out in Afghanistan. Nothing at all to do with Iraq. How come we didn't attack Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah, we already own/control that. What did we actually do in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, make sure there was an oil pipeline so we could load up our ships and we reestablished the opium trade! Nice!

My opinions on the war? The American people have been duped into committing terrible atrocities in the name of mega-corporations, banks, and the military industrial complex. How could we have been so stupid? Why are so many Americans still so stupid even today? Do they (we) really enjoy being scammed and ripped off so badly? It's like watching "The Sopranos" on a mega-international scale but we can't just turn off the TV when we've had enough and the deaths are real.

:( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :( ___ :(

Iraq War == Sham!

[MacNut]

To be fair, was Iraq all that great under Sadam's rule? You can say it didn't get better after the war, but was it really that good to begin with?

[skunk]

To be fair, was Iraq all that great under Sadam's rule? You can say it didn't get better after the war, but was it really that good to begin with?Being not "all that great" is not a very persuasive casus belli.

As far as education, healthcare, religious freedom and women's rights were concerned, Iraq was on a par with Lebanon, if not better, which is to say "not all that bad" in a Middle Eastern context.

[és:]

To be fair, was Iraq all that great under Sadam's rule? You can say it didn't get better after the war, but was it really that good to begin with?

Where else shall we invade next, blow the **** out of and kill their people, just because it wasn't 'really that good'.

[MacNut]

Being not "all that great" is not a very persuasive casus belli.

As far as education, healthcare, religious freedom and women's rights were concerned, Iraq was on a par with Lebanon, if not better, which is to say "not all that bad" in a Middle Eastern context.Women were still repressed. I think the way to look at Iraq will be in 50 years. Will the long term effects be better or worse than before the war.

[hulugu]

I didn't know the Roman Empire was last week. We are a human race, we are not perfect and we never will be. We will always fight. Unless the cave men were having tea parties Im sure they fought. It could be last week or the beginning of time, we always fought over something.

It's hard to say just exactly what "cave men" were doing, but there's considerable evidence that war was a rare and extremely limited act. Anthropological studies suggest that because of limits on resources and people, wars were often restricted to single combatants or limited skirmishes.

War in the prehistorical periods would've been more akin to "The Outsiders" than the warfare of later societies like the Greeks, Romans, or other agriculturally-driven societies. The evolution of war into its modern mechanized version has made war a more dangerous adventure. While the Romans might have taken over your city-state, enslaved some, and taxed the remainder, the modern war is far more destructive and more likely to wipe out entire populations. Modern warfare also has also advanced asymmetric warfare to the point wherein a modern society may be so wounded that it completely collapses. Previously it took armies and navies to do what one nuclear device or severe biological weapon could do.

As our technology accelerates war becomes so dangerous that Albert Einstein's quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" becomes increasingly relevant.
With this said, it would be the duty of a modern society to avoid wars of adventure or treasure, but to engage only in those that are defensive. Of course, the history of US military operations suggests that the US will continue to deploy forces across the globe operating under murky reasons, often supporting colonial or corporate interests.

[skunk]

Women were still repressed. I think the way to look at Iraq will be in 50 years. Will the long term effects be better or worse than before the war.For the odd million dead or maimed, their families and friends, probably worse.

[Rt&Dzine]

To be fair, was Iraq all that great under Sadam's rule? You can say it didn't get better after the war, but was it really that good to begin with?

The point is we were scammed into invading Iraq. And we couldn't afford it.

[MacNut]

The point is we were scammed into invading Iraq. And we couldn't afford it.That is true, but to say that the country was in great shape before we got there isn't true. We may have made it worse but it wasn't great to begin with.

[és:]

That is true, but to say that the country was in great shape before we got there isn't true. We may have made it worse but it wasn't great to begin with.

This is the most bizarre defence I think I've ever seen.

[MacNut]

This is the most bizarre defence I think I've ever seen.I am not defending anything.

[xUKHCx]

That is true, but to say that the country was in great shape before we got there isn't true. We may have made it worse but it wasn't great to begin with.

I literally do not know what to say to this. If this is any sort of locigal reasoning for the war or the large death and destruction raged on a country? Or even an excuse for those acts, or a validation of them.

[és:]

I am not defending anything.

Then what is your point. Have you got one or are you just trying to make us all aware that Iraq, a country rebuilding after being blown to bits by America and starved to death by their sanctions, wasn't 'all that great'. Thanks... we couldn't tell.

[Rt&Dzine]

That is true, but to say that the country was in great shape before we got there isn't true. We may have made it worse but it wasn't great to begin with.

I never said anything about its shape before we invaded.

[MacNut]

I literally do not know what to say to this. If this is any sort of locigal reasoning for the war or the large death and destruction raged on a country?It is not, but to say that everything was all rosy before we got there is not true.

[és:]

It is not, but to say that everything was all rosy before we got there is not true.

Who said things were all rosy? Why were they so bad? Do you know half of what America and Britain have done to that country? Both from the first war to the latest bloody massacre?

[MacNut]

I never said anything about its shape before we invaded.I was going off what Tesselator said.

[skunk]

It is not, but to say that everything was all rosy before we got there is not true.I don't think anybody has.

[MacNut]

I don't think anybody has.The feeling I was getting was that everybody was happy with how the country was before we got there. Sadam was killing his own people, should we have invaded, no. But was Sadam really good for his people either? If everything went smoothly and Sadam was taken out peacefully would the Iraqis still wanted us to take him out. In the long term is that country going to be better off without Sadam? I don't think we know the answer to that yet.

[Tesselator]

I was going off what Tesselator said.

All I said is what we did. Not how it was before. Truth be told we do not know what it was like before. Our news lies like dogs so unless you or someone lived there and can report - we truly have no clue. When I ask the Iraqi guys hanging out in the park here in Japan selling their illegal drugs, they all say it wasn't bad and loved living there - but had to avoid politics on every level.

<shrug>

[skunk]

In the long term is that country going to be better off without Sadam?In the long term, Saddam would have gone anyway.

[MacNut]

In the long term, Saddam would have gone anyway.And replaced by what? His kids?

[Tesselator]

The feeling I was getting was that everybody was happy with how the country was before we got there.

I was happier. Their problem were less in scale than now and their problems were theirs! Well, kinda... We (The USA) were actually responsible for Hu-in-sane being in power there in the first place.

[skunk]

And replaced by what? His kids?Who knows? George Bush just wanted to cement his place in history using the bodies of dead Iraqis.

[és:]

In the long term, Saddam would have gone anyway.

There is no 'regime change' argument for this war. If they wanted Saddam and his cronies out, they could have killed them without much hassle. Whilst I'd never support such an act, if it was a choice between that and what they did then it would be made in a flash.

[és:]

And replaced by what? His kids?

What does that have to do with America and Britain? There are plenty of other countries that are equally, or even more undemocratic. It isn't our business to decide to hang somebody we empowered. We propped him up.

Don't get fooled for a minute that our countries give a damn about these people. They wouldn't slaughter them if they did. They wouldn't prop up dictators if they cared. They don't.

[MacNut]

There is no 'regime change' argument for this war. If they wanted Saddam and his cronies out, they could have killed them without much hassle. Whilst I'd never support such an act, if it was a choice between that and what they did then it would be made in a flash.Wasn't that the idea? I thought the objective was to rid Sadam?

[és:]

Wasn't that the idea? I thought the objective was to rid Sadam?

No, it was because they had weapons of mass destruction that they could launch within 45 minutes.



All real... honest.

[skunk]

Wasn't that the idea? I thought the objective was to rid Sadam?The excuse originally given was the alleged presence of WMDs. That was the substance of both Tony Blair's and Colin Powell's lying presentations to Parliament and the UN General Assembly respectively. There is no basis in International Law or the UN Charter for regime change as a casus belli.

[Tesselator]

Wasn't that the idea? I thought the objective was to rid Sadam?

Not really no. We had the proposal (war plans) written up way before 9-11. We wanted to go in, break it into pieces (areas of local control), take the oil, and establish bases. Source: Pentagon Papers.

And that's basically what we did.

[MacNut]

No, it was because they had weapons of mass destruction that they could launch within 45 minutes.



All real... honest.The real objective was to get Sadam out. WMD's was the excuse.

[skunk]

The real objective was to get Sadam out.Illegal under the UN Charter. You cannot put this forward as a reason while claiming to follow international law.

[MacNut]

Illegal under the UN Charter. You cannot put this forward as a reason while claiming to follow international law.But the US went around the UN didn't they?

[skunk]

But the US went around the UN didn't they?On the contrary, they were very keen on saying they were acting on behalf of the UN.

[Tesselator]

Is it so easy to lead Americans astray? Corporate News = Propaganda and lies.

Look at what actually happened.

We Put Sadaam into power.
We sold them all the weapons they had.
We went in a disarmed them completely.
We attacked them and took their oil.
(and scammed the US people out of a lot of money for various things in various ways)
We established US bases (biggest in the world).
We broke them into localized areas of control.

Just like the 1999 proposal documented and just like the 2000 war plans planned.
(tho Item #1 and #2 in that list was much longer ago)

The rest is propaganda fed to gullible American citizens.

[Rt&Dzine]

Thanks for reminding me about the pipeline. International oil companies wanted that oil pipeline through Iraq and Hussein was dead against it. The Bush/Cheney ties to the oil industry ...

[skunk]

Thanks for reminding me about the pipeline. International oil companies wanted that oil pipeline through Iraq and Hussein was dead against it. The Bush/Cheney ties to the oil industry ...Surely the oil pipeline was the Unocal one through Afghanistan, not Iraq?

[Burnsey]

The real objective was to get Sadam out. WMD's was the excuse.

You cannot go around the world changing regimes you dont like.

Remember this?
http://roguecity.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/saddamrumsfeld.jpg

I wont believe for a second that the US governments intentions were anything remotely close to "spreading democracy and freedom" and "rooting out dangerous dictators".

It doesnt matter who he is and what he does to his people, as long as he follows american orders, he's supported, if he protests, he and a million others go bye bye.

[heron88]

Waste of time, waste of money, and sadly, a waste of lives.

We should have put all our efforts into Afghanistan.

Thats how I feel at least...

[leekohler]

Waste of time, waste of money, and sadly, a waste of lives.

We should have put all our efforts into Afghanistan.

Thats how I feel at least...

Yep- now that might be impossible too.

[NT1440]

Women were still repressed. I think the way to look at Iraq will be in 50 years. Will the long term effects be better or worse than before the war.

If youve paid attention, conditions for many many women and children are actually WORSE off now.

[Tesselator]

You cannot go around the world changing regimes you dont like.

Remember this?
http://roguecity.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/saddamrumsfeld.jpg

I wont believe for a second that the US governments intentions were anything remotely close to "spreading democracy and freedom" and "rooting out dangerous dictators".

It doesnt matter who he is and what he does to his people, as long as he follows american orders, he's supported, if he protests, he and a million others go bye bye.

I agree but for a small caveat. Democracy and Freedom are mutually exclusive terms. Democracy is mob rule where 51% dictate and control the rights and actions of the other 49%. The current US gov is all for Democracy! Freedom... not so much! :(

[Tesselator]

Waste of time, waste of money, and sadly, a waste of lives.

We should have put all our efforts into Afghanistan.

Thats how I feel at least...

Yep- now that might be impossible too.

Why? Did you believe the lies and nationalistic hype they spewed out from the television? What would be the reasons for any actions at all in Afghanistan? I mean honorable reasons... not securing the pipeline, exporting opium, and pointing more weapons at Russia and China.

[Rt&Dzine]

Surely the oil pipeline was the Unocal one through Afghanistan, not Iraq?

The proposed Aqaba pipeline project from Iraq to Jordan that Bechtel wanted to build. Rumsfeld was a key player for that project. Hussein turned them down. More recently, Bechtel was in the running along with Halliburton to get the contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. My mistake it was Bechtel not international.

[heron88]

What would be the reasons for any actions at all in Afghanistan?

Um, maybe because they harbored terrorists that in turn killed thousands of people.

Thats like asking what reason did we have for bombing Japan in WWII:rolleyes:

[Tesselator]

Um, maybe because they harbored terrorists that in turn killed thousands of people.

Thats like asking what reason did we have for bombing Japan in WWII:rolleyes:

So we're harboring the terrorists that killed millions named George and Dick. Not to mention the terrorists that invaded Nam, and 10 or 20 South American countries. So maybe China or Russia should invade the USA and slaughter millions because of the actions of a handful of men? In our case it would almost be justified as the terrorists here are heads of state. Bin Laudin is just a militant hippy (working for the CIA) from two countries over hanging out in the hills - or was... they're long gone now!

I think we bombed Japan because wanted to study the affects of nuclear war on the population. That's the conclusion top Japanese scientists have come to. It certainly wasn't because of a sneak attack. That's been proven false several years ago. More lies fed to the American people from its propaganda machine.

[NT1440]

So we're harboring the terrorists that killed millions named George and Dick. Not to mention the terrorists that invaded Nam, and 10 or 20 South American countries. So maybe China or Russia should invade the USA and slaughter millions because of the actions of a handful of men?

I think we bombed Japan because wanted to study the affects of nuclear war on the population. That's the conclusion top Japanese scientists have come to. It certainly want because of a sneak attack. That's been proven false several years ago. More lies fed to the American people from its propaganda machine.

Just to be fair, I dont think the death toll has reached 1 million yet. But still, one innocent life snuffed out is one too many.

[Tesselator]

Just to be fair, I dont think the death toll has reached 1 million yet. But still, one innocent life snuffed out is one too many.

In Afghanistan? Yeah, probably right. I was thinking percentages. If we killed 2% of their population what would be the head-count in the USA for the same percentage.

I agree wholeheartedly about even one life being too large a price!

[heron88]

So we're harboring the terrorists that killed millions named George and Dick. Not to mention the terrorists that invaded Nam, and 10 or 20 South American countries. So maybe China or Russia should invade the USA and slaughter millions because of the actions of a handful of men? In our case it would almost be justified as the terrorists here are heads of state. Bin Laudin is just a militant hippy (working for the CIA) from two countries over hanging out in the hills - or was... they're long gone now!

I think we bombed Japan because wanted to study the affects of nuclear war on the population. That's the conclusion top Japanese scientists have come to. It certainly wasn't because of a sneak attack. That's been proven false several years ago. More lies fed to the American people from its propaganda machine.

This whole post shows just how ignorant you are. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. I could be wrong, but it seems like you believe 9/11 was a US government conspiracy right?

[Tesselator]

This whole post shows just how ignorant you are. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. I could be wrong, but it seems like you believe 9/11 was a US government conspiracy right?

Me? No I don't pretend to know who perpetrated the attacks on 9-11. The chances of it being Bin Loudmouth are about a billion to one according to just what our own media presented us with (not to mention what the foreign has uncovered and reported) - but I have no idea who it actually was. And it goes without saying that no one here knows either - unless they were part of the operation.

I was thinking more along the lines of this kind of information: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8028007074233952313
I guess he (John Pilger) has some others too: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=John+Pilger+google+video&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Also as you're using the term "conspiracy theorist" it simply doesn't exist. There are some nut cases out there that believe in green lizards from other dimensions but they're simply nuts - same as it's been since there were human societies. If you believe that ANY conspiracy is true which has not been proven... your friends talking about steeling a candybar, Dick's involvement with Haliburton, Bush steeling the US presidency, Electronic voting machines being rigged, any voter fraud at all in any country, California utility companies perpetrating rolling brown-outs to increase rates, etc. etc. then you are a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't mean nut-job as you're trying to imply. In fact people who use it that way are victims of media brainwashing. I didn't think there were too many internet users who were so weak-minded as to be brainwashed by the lame-a$$ corporate media. Am I wrong?

[heron88]

I've read your post about 5 times and it still doesn't make any sense. As far as where I get my information, I get it from every media outlet... Radio, tv, Internet, etc. I make sure I have heard the whole story. Not just what the mainstream has to say.

[Tesselator]

I've read your post about 5 times and it still doesn't make any sense. As far as where I get my information, I get it from every media outlet... Radio, tv, Internet, etc. I make sure I have heard the whole story. Not just what the mainstream has to say.

Cool! So I'm not wrong!?!? So if I have you google "MI6 Operation Mass Appeal" it or any of a number of other "operations" from british and US secret intelligence agencies, won't be news to you at all? That's good! I hope it's true! I've always suspected that the internet crowd was a little more savvy than the typical American.

[Tesselator]

Oh, and as far as what I meant by media brainwashing... Look up the terms "conspiracy" and "theorist" and apply them as you would any other term. They do NOT mean "cook who believes in accepted impossibilities". This last definition is propagated by corporate media, and the real cooks in washington. If you or anyone accepts this definition then you've bought an untruth and accepted it as truth. This is a form of brainwashing and those accepting it are victims thereof. We're all victims of this kind of thing on some level or another... there's nothing voodoo-ish about it.

[bobber205]

I didn't know the Roman Empire was last week. We are a human race, we are not perfect and we never will be. We will always fight. Unless the cave men were having tea parties Im sure they fought. It could be last week or the beginning of time, we always fought over something.

We should strive to be better than that, and not just say "oh well. it happens."

[Cromulent]

1939 Germany didnt Attack the US directly nor the UK.

The only reason the US entered WWII was because of Pearl Harbour. If that had never happened it is likely that the US would not have joined the war at all as the prevailing public and political attitude at the time was one of isolationism.

Seems funny now especially seeing as America holds up its actions in WWII as being the epitome of saving the world from tyranny when they very nearly didn't even join the war in the first place. Same goes for WWI as well.

[scott:mac]

The only reason the US entered WWII was because of Pearl Harbour. If that had never happened it is likely that the US would not have joined the war at all as the prevailing public and political attitude at the time was one of isolationism.

Seems funny now especially seeing as America holds up its actions in WWII as being the epitome of saving the world from tyranny when they very nearly didn't even join the war in the first place. Same goes for WWI as well.


Agreed, Let us not forgot other countries fought for years before the US joined in.
America had no intention on joining the conquest of defeating Hitlers lust for power and empire.

BUT that said, If America had not have joined, We would probably be living in a completely different society today.
The US brought extra ammunition in both Weapons and Soldiers.

There are just wars and there are pointless ones.
Thats the way it will always be.

“So long as there is man there will be war”
“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”

[hulugu]

The only reason the US entered WWII was because of Pearl Harbour. If that had never happened it is likely that the US would not have joined the war at all as the prevailing public and political attitude at the time was one of isolationism.

Seems funny now especially seeing as America holds up its actions in WWII as being the epitome of saving the world from tyranny when they very nearly didn't even join the war in the first place. Same goes for WWI as well.

That's possible, although with the Lend-Lease Act and our supply to both the Russians and British, it's certain that the German navy would have attacked our ships, either at sea or even in US waters. That would have been enough of a casus belli to enter the war.
Also, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to break the back of our navy and make it possible to invade the Philippines, Guam, and a number of other US holdings. The Japanese could have avoided engaging the US entirely, but that would have been logistically difficult if they wanted to continue through Asia.

I'd argue that Roosevelt was looking for such a cause and the Japanese gave him a rather dramatic one.

Many of the commanders in the US military saw it as inevitable and were preparing to go to war before December, 1941.

[Tesselator]

Also, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to break the back of our navy and make it possible to invade the Philippines, Guam, and a number of other US holdings. The Japanese could have avoided engaging the US entirely, but that would have been logistically difficult if they wanted to continue through Asia.

I dunno if I agree with that or not. I live in Japan here myself and that's not exactly their take on it either. They were starving in Japan at the time and the USA had strict sanctions on them making life just terrible here. Compare it to the 1.8 million children that that US sanctions killed in Iraq.

Hell most of the Zero's used in Perl Harbor were constructed out of scraps, plywood, anything they could their hands on - which was not much.


I'd argue that Roosevelt was looking for such a cause and the Japanese gave him a rather dramatic one.

Exactly right and true, most historians agree!

[Macky-Mac]

I dunno if I agree with that or not. I live in Japan here myself and that's not exactly their take on it either. They were starving in Japan at the time and the USA had strict sanctions on them making life just terrible here. Compare it to the 1.8 million children that that US sanctions killed in Iraq.

Hell most of the Zero's used in Perl Harbor were constructed out of scraps, plywood, anything they could their hands on - which was not much.


Yes, The japanese have never been known for owning up to their actions at the start of WW2.

In the early 1930s they annexed Manchuria. In 1937 their armies invaded China. In the summer of 1937 there was a major offensive at Shanghai. 250,000 Chinese military and civilians were killed. The Nanking massacre took place in December of 1937. 250,000 civilians were killed. The fighting continued into the 1940s as the japanese invasion pushed further and further into China. In 1938 and 39 they fought a war with the Russians. In 1941 they invaded Indochina.

Those "strict sanctions" you refer to didn't even start until after Indochina was invaded in 1941, and by that time the war was 4 years old.

The hardships in japan that you mention were the result of years of diverting resources to the military and away from the public.

[Tesselator]

Yes, The japanese have never been known for owning up to their actions at the start of WW2.

True, they're not known for "officially" owning up to stuff or apologizing in a timely manner - internationally. But the information isn't tainted among the people. Public information and spread of it isn't dissuaded or hijacked like the US and UK - so the common man knows the score if he's paying attention. Disinformation here (about historical events) isn't very common.

The hardships in japan that you mention were the result of years of diverting resources to the military and away from the public.

Yup, that was a major part of it. The sanctions were being enforced (in affect illegally) for a few years before they were made official however and were also a major contributor to the people's impoverishment. You can see some evidence of this when in 1939 the USA terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. Here's some reference:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930


.

[Macky-Mac]

..... The sanctions were being enforced (in affect illegally) for a few years before they were made official however and were also a major contributor to the people's impoverishment. You can see some evidence of this when in 1939 the USA terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan.....

and rather a late reaction to the Japanese war of expansion it was. 1939 was well after the japanese had started to make war on their neighbors. Manchuria had been annexed, China had been invaded, Russian had been attacked, and Korea had been annexed by 1939..... Rather astonishingly the link you provided completely ignores that fact, much as the japanese often prefer to do. And as your link points out, the material that was finally embargoed in 1940 wasn't civilian goods but material to supply the japanese military such as aviation fuel.

By the time the USA terminated that treaty, the war had been under way for a number of years.


....Public information and spread of it isn't dissuaded or hijacked like the US and UK - so the common man knows the score if he's paying attention. Disinformation here (about historical events) isn't very common......

That's not really true either. The Japanese government has been criticized over and over for the falsehoods and misrepresentations about the war in the government issued school textbooks, especially by countries such as China, Korea, and the Philippines, who were the victims of its war making.

[OutThere]

The war began when I was a freshman in high school. For my history class at the time we had to write a few pages about what we felt about the war, how we felt it would turn out, what kind of outcomes we expected. I watched Colin Powell sell the war with some highly dubious photos and wrote my paper about how I felt that we would not get what we were expecting in Iraq and it would turn into a kind of 21st century Vietnam—unwinnable and a political hot potato—despite how thoroughly convinced everyone else seemed to be at the time.

6 years later I'm a political science major studying the events leading up to the war in class...and as much as it hurts I'm one of the few people I know who can sit back and honestly say "I told you so." Wish I still had that paper from high school.

I'll leave you with a little breakdown of America's star-studded history of nation-building attempts...which is my reason for believing that we need to ****** off asap and not look back or spend any more money there...(from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief24.pdf)

Now playing: The Decemberists - Summersong (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/the+decemberists/track/summersong)

[Tesselator]

That's not really true either. The Japanese government has been criticized over and over for the falsehoods and misrepresentations about the war in the government issued school textbooks, especially by countries such as China, Korea, and the Philippines, who were the victims of its war making.

Kinda like the USA is doing... Yeah I agree but that's not what I meant by information from and among the common man. I meant in books, films, TV, and literature that contain 1st hand accounts and the actual information. Everyone here knows that for the most part the government schools are packed with the government's rendition of events - mostly anyway.

Anyway we agree about everything. The only minor point is that most or all shipping was blocked or prohibited not just metals - even though that was the official excuse. Starting from '38 or so (for the most part) Japan was cut off and kicked out of the car so to speak. ;) Metals were actually the last thing to be stopped. Almost like someone wanted to profit from the war?!? ;) So it was a combination of both their over extended empire building and US/UK political actions that began to cause so much suffering here. By '41 Japan was pretty desperate and Pearl Harbor was a result in large part, of that desperation.

[toontra]

That is true, but to say that the country was in great shape before we got there isn't true. We may have made it worse but it wasn't great to begin with.

Hah, I like it :D. You've just written Bush's epitaph.