I'm Confused

jimmmy

The Saint wrote: »

I think you need to read the whole thread.

I had done that, but the previous poster Nodin asked what did he do, and she appears to have sympathy for him.

The Saint wrote: »

What I think he's getting at is 'what did he do prior to the current war to justify an invasion'?

Good question. He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban / a possible threat to world peace, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps the allies should have kept going at the Kuwaiti border , when they stoped there at the end of Gulf war 1. Personally I suspect he was involved with weapons of mass destruction. If another 9/11 happened only 10 times worse, would not the do-gooders be saying why was it not prevented ?

Plus I think the reason is oil. Oil would be dearer than it is if Saddam was still in power, ye can be sure of that. The current regime in Iraq is more friendly to the needs of the west. It has to be to stay in power. Nice that we benefit from cheap oil + let the yanks brits do the dirty work as usual. Not for the first time.

wes

jimmmy wrote: »

Good question. He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban / a possible threat to world peace, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps the allies should have kept going at the Kuwaiti border , when they stoped there at the end of Gulf war 1. Personally I suspect he was involved with weapons of mass destruction. If another 9/11 happened only 10 times worse, would not the do-gooders be saying why was it not prevented ?

There is no proof Saddam, had any WMD's. None were found after the invasion, so its safe to say your suspicions are simply wrong.

How exactly would invading Iraq prevent another 9/11 (seeing as Saddam has nothing to do with it)? One of the main reasons for the 7/7 attacks, was the Iraq invasion. So looks like the Iraq invasion was something of a epic fail then, as it actually gave new reasons for people to engage in terrorist attacks.

jimmmy wrote: »

Plus I think the reason is oil. Oil would be dearer than it is if Saddam was still in power, ye can be sure of that. The current regime in Iraq is more friendly to the needs of the west. It has to be to stay in power. Nice that we benefit from cheap oil + let the yanks brits do the dirty work as usual. Not for the first time.

Nice attitude there, so cheap oil makes it all alright then?

AARRRGH

wes wrote: »

One of the main reasons for the 7/7 attacks, was the Iraq invasion. So looks like the Iraq invasion was something of a epic fail then, as it actually gave new reasons for people to engage in terrorist attacks.

I find it amazing that so many people don't understand the concept of revenge and retaliation.

I know if I were an Iraqi and the US killed some of my family members, I'd be on the Al Qaeda website clicking the sign up button.

And I'm a moderate, reasonable person.

The Saint

jimmmy wrote: »

Good question. He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban / a possible threat to world peace, rightly or wrongly.

Wrongly. Not even a point of contention.

jimmmy wrote: »

Perhaps the allies should have kept going at the Kuwaiti border , when they stoped there at the end of Gulf war 1.

Perhaps. Instead they instigated a Shia uprising in the south and then abandoned them to be slaughtered by Saddam.

jimmmy wrote: »

Personally I suspect he was involved with weapons of mass destruction. If another 9/11 happened only 10 times worse, would not the do-gooders be saying why was it not prevented ?

Well I think there's little doubt that he was previously aquiring WMD but this was not the case before the 2003 invasion as the weapins inspections were showing and subsequent events have proven. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, Al-Qaida or the Taliban. The invasion of Iraq did noting to improve American security. On the contrary, it probably increased the liklihood of an attack. I'm surprised you're bringing it up all all tbh.

jimmmy wrote: »

Plus I think the reason is oil. Oil would be dearer than it is if Saddam was still in power, ye can be sure of that. The current regime in Iraq is more friendly to the needs of the west. It has to be to stay in power. Nice that we benefit from cheap oil + let the yanks brits do the dirty work as usual. Not for the first time.

You could be right. It's debatable what the true reason for the invasion was. I'd prefer the Yanks and the Brits do the dirty work of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people for cheap oil for me. There would have been a cheaper way of keeping oil prices cheap while not spending a fortune on an invasion. If they lifted sanctions on Iraq and allowed them to export oil then this would keep the market value of oil down.

wes

AARRRGH wrote: »

I find it amazing that so many people don't understand the concept of revenge and retaliation.

I know if I were an Iraqi and the US killed some of my family members, I'd be on the Al Qaeda website clicking the sign up button.

And I'm a moderate, reasonable person.

I full expect to be accused of supporting terrorism, in a couple of posts, for pointing out such a large elephant in the room.

jimmmy

AARRRGH wrote: »

I know if I were an Iraqi and the US killed some of my family members, I'd be on the Al Qaeda website clicking the sign up button.

And if they ( Yanks, brits , or some of the other coalition countries ) dug a well in my village and brought me fresh water, or their doctor saw my sick child, then I would be on their side ( or at least not against them ) , despite all the propoganda. Thats why the yanks + brits try to help the local populations as much as they can. It did not end with them giving out sweets , or the locals toppling the big statues of Saddam ....remember that on the tv ?

jimmmy

The Saint wrote: »

I'd prefer the Yanks and the Brits do the dirty work of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people for cheap oil for me.

There would have been a cheaper way of keeping oil prices cheap while not spending a fortune on an invasion. If they lifted sanctions on Iraq and allowed them to export oil then this would keep the market value of oil down.

If you think the "Yanks and the Brits " ( which must include a fair percentage of people of Irish extraction ) have killed "hundreds of thousands of innocent people " you have been seriously misinformed. Yes a lot of Iraquis have been killed, but its usually themselves placing car bombs in their own country etc. The US + UK would have nothing to gain by "killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people ".

Also if you think the west is not getting cheap oil out of Iraq and the middle east now, you are deluded there also. As said before, "nice that we benefit from cheap oil + let the yanks brits do the dirty work as usual. Not for the first time. "

AARRRGH

jimmmy wrote: »

And if they ( Yanks, brits , or some of the other coalition countries ) dug a well in my village and brought me fresh water, or their doctor saw my sick child, then I would be on their side ( or at least not against them ) , despite all the propoganda. Thats why the yanks + brits try to help the local populations as much as they can. It did not end with them giving out sweets , or the locals toppling the big statues of Saddam ....remember that on the tv ?

Hang on - what?!

The US invaded Iraq, destroyed the country, and has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The Iraqis already had drinking water and a decent medical system before the invasion. Have a read of this sort of thing.

I think you're the one being fooled by propaganda if you think the Iraqis were living in a backwards country before the USA "came to their rescue".

Sand

1.5 million civillians killed in Iraq since the US/UK invasion in 2003?

Sure it wasnt 15 million civillians? With the rate of inflation on these figures, its always best to aim higher with the claims.

I know if I were an Iraqi and the US killed some of my family members, I'd be on the Al Qaeda website clicking the sign up button.

And I'm a moderate, reasonable person.

And if you were a US soldier and some Iraqis killed some of your unit, would you drive down to the local village and start screaming "Lets do them! Lets do the whole ****ing village!"

Because you're a moderate, reasonable person.
:rolleyes:

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Ah (.....)

A jumbled collection of facts, assorted to give a false impression.

Why do you try to imply that those things have been denied, by the way?

jimmmy wrote: »

but the previous poster Nodin asked what did he do, and she appears to have sympathy for him

There was no "supergun" extant at the time of the 2nd Iraq war.

Saddams excesss of gassing Kurds, torturing and killing his own people, as well as Iranians occured primarily during his time loosely allied to the West. By the time of the 2nd Iraq war his was a very weakened regime, with no control over the North of his own country. To quote the British Cabinet view from July in 2002 "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

You will, of course, quote from the post that 'appears to have sympathy' for Saddam please, as I'm burning with curiosity as to what possible combination of words could have given that impression. Unless, of course, you made a mistake, in which case you can retract the remark and no harm done......

O yes - If you are unable to provide a quote within the next 24 hours or so, and don't retract the post, I'll be forced to report it. I've no interest in debating false allegations and I doubt anyone else is interested in me chasing you round the thread over it.

I might add that my gender is male.

jimmmy wrote: »

He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban

He was? Fascinating, because I've never heard that one, and I've a fairly good memory. Could we have a source for this?

jimmmy wrote: »

He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban/a possible threat to world peace, rightly or wrongly

jimmmy wrote: »

Plus I think the reason is oil.

Contradicting yourself in your own post?

jimmmy wrote: »

Personally I suspect he was involved with weapons of mass destruction. If another 9/11 happened only 10 times worse

Some people suspect that beings hide behind walls, but when the walls are taken down, there is no one there. The Americans, British and Australians were unable to find any evidence whatsoever for a weapons program. It was revealed however, that the Americans previously had evidence all programs had been dismantled by the mid 90's.

jimmmy wrote: »

Oil would be dearer than it is if Saddam was still in power,.

Whats your exact reasoning behind that statement?

alfranken

As much as I was against the war (they will pay for this distraction from Afghanistan) it's extreme muslim groups doing most of the killing of innocent muslims.

AARRRGH

Sand wrote: »

And if you were a US soldier and some Iraqis killed some of your unit, would you drive down to the local village and start screaming "Lets do them! Lets do the whole ****ing village!"

Because you're a moderate, reasonable person.
:rolleyes:

I know you will probably find this hard to believe, but the US invaded Iraq, they weren't invited there by the Iraqis.

To make this simple, imagine Saudi Arabia invaded Ireland and killed a couple of hundred thousand innocent people.

If an Irish person started attacking the Saudi Arabian soldiers, would you think this was unreasonable, or would you fully understand it?

Would you think the actions of the Saudi Arabian soldiers was fair and should be supported, or would you think WTF ARE THEY DOING IN MY COUNTRY?

I understand this is complex, so please think about it for a bit before replying.

Sand

I know you will probably find this hard to believe, but the US invaded Iraq, they weren't invited there by the Iraqis.

To make this simple, imagine Saudi Arabia invaded Ireland and killed a couple of hundred thousand innocent people.

If an Irish person started attacking the Saudi Arabian soldiers, would you think this was unreasonable, or would you fully understand it?

Would you think the actions of the Saudi Arabian soldiers was fair and should be supported, or would you think WTF ARE THEY DOING IN MY COUNTRY?

I understand this is complex, so please think about it for a bit before replying

.

Please understand Ive seen that sort of juvenile logic repeated endlessly on these boards. It doesnt get more impressive with repetition.

You can continue to twist yourself in knots to end up with a principled stance thats basically Nixons If the president does it, its not a crime defence.

alfranken

Sand wrote: »

.

Please understand Ive seen that sort of juvenile logic repeated endlessly on these boards. It doesnt get more impressive with repetition.

You can continue to twist yourself in knots to end up with a principled stance thats basically Nixons If the president does it, its not a crime defence.

Doesn't come down to right or wrong, just the human desire for revenge; works both ways. How many morons thought that by supporting the war in Iraq they were somehow getting vengeance for septmber 11th?

Sand

Doesn't come down to right or wrong, just the human desire for revenge; works both ways.

So then you do agree if you were a US soldier in Iraq, and Iraqis shot people in your unit, youd be doing revenge attacks on local villages.

Wonderful. And youre a nice, moderate person.

Remember, doesnt come down to right or wrong. Works both ways...more gems of profound insight....

alfranken

Sand wrote: »

So then you do agree if you were a US soldier in Iraq, and Iraqis shot people in your unit, youd be doing revenge attacks on local villages.

Wonderful. And youre a nice, moderate person.

Remember, doesnt come down to right or wrong. Works both ways...more gems of profound insight....

I never said it doesn't work both ways of course it does, I'm just saying vengeance and retaliation are big driving forces. If I was in the army and that happened who knows what I'd do, I'm sure it's happened; but why are they there in the first place (see links below, I guarantee peoples ignorance led to their support for the war, you don't gung ho support a war then act surprised when people in the country attacked don't like it)? It's happening internally also with sunni/shiia violence, which actually makes up the most of the daeth toll.
What's your profound insight, if an Iraqi gets a family member killed by an allied soldier it's ok because they thought they were in the right?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007885.php

AlekSmart

Originally Posted by jimmmy
Good question. He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban / a possible threat to world peace, rightly or wrongly.

Again,and from hazy memory,is there not some quite strong evidence that the bould Saadam and his family were regarded with total and public disgust by Al Quaida and particularly by Osama Bin Laden himself who saw Saadam`s behaviuour as being a variance with the basic tenets of righteous Islamic Teaching ?

I would have thought that if the US had`nt engineered Saadam`s deposition then Mr Bin Laden surely would..????

The Saint

jimmmy wrote: »

If you think the "Yanks and the Brits " ( which must include a fair percentage of people of Irish extraction ) have killed "hundreds of thousands of innocent people " you have been seriously misinformed. Yes a lot of Iraquis have been killed, but its usually themselves placing car bombs in their own country etc. The US + UK would have nothing to gain by "killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people ".
I'll defer to the Nuremberg principles here:

"To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Therefore, since the US initiated the war, it is responsible for the subsequent "whole" of the events that have taken place as a result of it. It was perfectly predictable that the invasion would lead to sectarian violence and foreign elements entering the country. I, and many others, prior to the war predicted it. I'm sure those in the state and defense departments were unaware of this liklihood. The allies also bear responsibility for the secondary effect that would increase mortality such as the decimation of the health service.

jimmmy wrote: »

Also if you think the west is not getting cheap oil out of Iraq and the middle east now, you are deluded there also. As said before, "nice that we benefit from cheap oil + let the yanks brits do the dirty work as usual. Not for the first time. "

Iraq has only reached pre-war export level in august of this year. So for the last six years the amount of of Iraqi oil on the international market was less than that of pre-war levels. I'm not an economist but surely less oil on the market means higher prices?
http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2009/08/25/77085.html

Also, since the invasion in 2003, the price of oil has steadily increased up until 2008.

peasant

A short (very short) summary of American interests and actions in the Persian Gulf:

1) Oil is discoverd in the gulf area (Iran, Irak, Saudi Arabia and the emirates)
2) The largest oil reserves happen to be in SA. That is inconvenient for the following reasons: SA is stoutly muslim and also houses the most holy muslim sites. Western influence is not wanted there, western occupiers certainly are not tolerated. Therfore SA is an insecure supplier of oil, as its ruling kings (despite being held in power by US money) are not reliable and could turn off the tap at any time
3) Another, secure, more Western friendly base is needed and is found in Persia (now Iran) with its Shah who is dead keen to westernize his country (but most of all his personal lifestile) with oil money. Despite countless human rights violations in his own country, the Shah is supported by the US
4) There is a revolution in Iran, the Shah is kicked out, the Mullahs take over, Iran is lost as a western-friendly power base and actually turns ito a threat.
4) The US (and most of the European countries) support and supply Irak and Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and kick the mullahs out ...despite his best efforts and eight years of trying, he fails
5) Support for Irak dries up, so Saddam decides to help himself and invades Kuwait
6) The US don't really care, Hussein is still in their good books except for one minor detail: The Saudi princes got a fright with Iraki tanks suddenly rolling their way and want Saddam wrist-slapped, otherwise they'd turn off the tap
7) Saddam gets a slap on the wrist (Gulf war one)
8) With Afghanistan, 9/11, Iran making ever more noise and the Saudi princes in danger of being toppled by muslim fundamentalist revolution, the region becomes ever more unstable
9) A new, stable power base is needed
10) Reasons are made up up to invade Irak to establish "democracy" (read a US friendly governement) there
11) Irak is invaded
12) Mission accomplished ...errr ..maybe not

alfranken

AlekSmart wrote: »

Again,and from hazy memory,is there not some quite strong evidence that the bould Saadam and his family were regarded with total and public disgust by Al Quaida and particularly by Osama Bin Laden himself who saw Saadam`s behaviuour as being a variance with the basic tenets of righteous Islamic Teaching ?

I would have thought that if the US had`nt engineered Saadam`s deposition then Mr Bin Laden surely would..????

I think Bin Laden offered his support to the Saudi King if Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia at the time of the first gulf war.

Sand

What's your profound insight, if an Iraqi gets a family member killed by an allied soldier it's ok because they thought they were in the right?

No - youre taking your own view and simply projecting a reverse tribalism upon me. It seems you cant even consider that theres any other way of looking at an issue that isnt "Us" and "Them".

The way Id look at it is was the killing murder or not. If my imaginary family member was out planting roadside IEDs and happened to get killed in the course of that effort, well, live by the sword, die by it. That doesnt mean Id welcome it, but it wouldnt be morally wrong.

On the other hand, if my imaginary family member was merely selling ice cream and ran into some blood crazed US soldier who believed his need for veangence for some loss to him justified him committing indiscriminate killings in revenge...well, that would be murder and that would be morally wrong.

You see how principles work? How its the act that matters? Not the perpatrator?

AARRRGH

Sand wrote: »

So then you do agree if you were a US soldier in Iraq, and Iraqis shot people in your unit, youd be doing revenge attacks on local villages.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the acts of an invader and the acts of the people being invaded.

You seem to think they're the same thing.

They're not.

The invaders are not the good guys. Their actions should not be treated equally to the actions of the people being invaded.

You don't seem to understand this.

AARRRGH

Sand wrote: »

Please understand Ive seen that sort of juvenile logic repeated endlessly on these boards.

It's not juvenile logic, you're simply uneducated (I don't mean that as an insult).

You should definitely read up on the Iraq war to learn what really is going on in that country. For starters - seriously - you need to stop seeing the US as the good guys. If anything they're the opposite.

Also, you need to stop seeing invaders as innocent people.

alfranken

Sand wrote: »

No - youre taking your own view and simply projecting a reverse tribalism upon me. It seems you cant even consider that theres any other way of looking at an issue that isnt "Us" and "Them".

The way Id look at it is was the killing murder or not. If my imaginary family member was out planting roadside IEDs and happened to get killed in the course of that effort, well, live by the sword, die by it. That doesnt mean Id welcome it, but it wouldnt be morally wrong.

On the other hand, if my imaginary family member was merely selling ice cream and ran into some blood crazed US soldier who believed his need for veangence for some loss to him justified him committing indiscriminate killings in revenge...well, that would be murder and that would be morally wrong.

You see how principles work? How its the act that matters? Not the perpatrator?

I see how those principles work and agree on both points, my point is that if you (people in general) get gung ho about a war you have to accept the consequences and people not liking having family members killed comes into it as does the example of a soldier out for revenge, and you can't say these aren't consequences of war. I know the eye for an eye and the world goes blind comes into it but unfortunately vengeance is a strong force.
I still maintain that support for the Iraq war was driven by anger and the need for vengeance after septmber the 11th and ignorance played a large part in that support and actions have consequences.

alfranken

AARRRGH wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the difference between the acts of an invader and the acts of the people being invaded.

You seem to think they're the same thing.

They're not.

The invaders are not the good guys. Their actions should not be treated equally to the actions of the people being invaded.

You don't seem to understand this.

Some of the people who have been invaded have no problem bombing other people being invaded, alot of people seem to think all the deaths were cause by the allies. The US can be accused of having no plan but no one forced the suicide bombers into killing fellow citizens.

AARRRGH

alfranken wrote: »

Some of the people who have been invaded have no problem bombing other people being invaded, alot of people seem to think all the deaths were cause by the allies. The US can be accused of having no plan but no one forced the suicide bombers into killing fellow citizens.

The tribal problems are a seperate issue, and should not be included in this discussion.

I am talking specifically about the actions of an invading army, and the actions of the locals defending themselves/seeking revenge.

Rebelheart

Deleted User wrote: »

The 1.5 million is sad too by the way...why did Hussein and Al Qaeda bring all this down bring all this horror down on their own people?

Yeah, I'm sure the gringos would be in Iraq if there were no oil, just there to help the natives from the evil Hussein and Al Qaeda ....

Britain and the United States? Lovely states with lovely people with a genuine interest in selflessly civilising planet earth, as the native Irish and native Americans can attest to.

alfranken

[quoteDeleted User =]
The 1.5 million is sad too by the way...why did Hussein and Al Qaeda bring all this down bring all this horror down on their own people?
[/quote]


Fo sizzle dude

Sand

@AARGGGH

The invaders are not the good guys. Their actions should not be treated equally to the actions of the people being invaded

Yeah, yeah the old if you do it its terrible, but if I do it then its fine logic.

Youd probably think the US were hypocrites for complaining about the Lockerbie bombing when they shot down an Iranian airliner...I'm right arent I, you do dont you? You probably wont even grasp why thats hilarious.

@alfranken

my point is that if you (people in general) get gung ho about a war you have to accept the consequences and people not liking having family members killed comes into it as does the example of a soldier out for revenge, and you can't say these aren't consequences of war.

Of course, but this is just a statement of fact. If theres a war, people are going to die. Not just combatants, but also non-combatants. That doesnt make such revenge attacks right - just explicable. And it cant be assumed that because someone suffers a loss that they decide to carry out atrocities in revenge, or that because someone is poor, that they commit crimes as a result. Circumstances might explain decisions but they dont justify them - many Iraqis have lost familiy members in sectarian bloodshed without engaging in it themselves, many coalition soldiers have lost friends without deciding to murder innocent locals in revenge, many people have come from poor and disadvantaged areas without ever having comitted a crime in their lives.

If you want your actions to be considered justified, you need to be able to justify your decisions based on their own merits, not on the basis of "I was angry!" or "They started it!" or "Theyre sub-human - hence I can do whatever I want to them!"

Thats what makes the invaders/defenders logic so ridiculous...A group of people, "the invaders", are assigned sub human status, any atrocity against this sub-human group is justified, even necessary. This path of thinking doesnt lead to happy endings. Any remember, "the invaders" is just a label that fits a particular interpretation of events. And interpretations are like assholes, everyons got one.

alfranken

Sand wrote: »

@AARGGGH


Yeah, yeah the old if you do it its terrible, but if I do it then its fine logic.

Youd probably think the US were hypocrites for complaining about the Lockerbie bombing when they shot down an Iranian airliner...I'm right arent I, you do dont you? You probably wont even grasp why thats hilarious.

@alfranken


Of course, but this is just a statement of fact. If theres a war, people are going to die. Not just combatants, but also non-combatants. That doesnt make such revenge attacks right - just explicable. And it cant be assumed that because someone suffers a loss that they decide to carry out atrocities in revenge, or that because someone is poor, that they commit crimes as a result. Circumstances might explain decisions but they dont justify them - many Iraqis have lost familiy members in sectarian bloodshed without engaging in it themselves, many coalition soldiers have lost friends without deciding to murder innocent locals in revenge, many people have come from poor and disadvantaged areas without ever having comitted a crime in their lives.

If you want your actions to be considered justified, you need to be able to justify your decisions based on their own merits, not on the basis of "I was angry!" or "They started it!" or "Theyre sub-human - hence I can do whatever I want to them!"

Thats what makes the invaders/defenders logic so ridiculous...A group of people, "the invaders", are assigned sub human status, any atrocity against this sub-human group is justified, even necessary. This path of thinking doesnt lead to happy endings. Any remember, "the invaders" is just a label that fits a particular interpretation of events. And interpretations are like assholes, everyons got one.

Ok, I wasn't saying they are right but more of a by product and to be expected, my whole not saying right or wrong earlier probably didn't help.