War-Losing Faction

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt. Ain't real. And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion. I would not credit the notion that the UN did not understand this.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion.

Ah, I love this line of thinking that our administration shares: the problem will be solved by removing Saddam and not much will be needed beyond that. Force the dictator out, and the people will resolve the rest, right? Everyone over there supports our ideals, so it should all go smoothly. We should only need 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq right now since they should all mostly be pro-American by now, right? Cultural, tribal, political, and religious issues aside, we can fix anything by simply removing the dictator and letting the people do the rest! It really is that easy.

What? You say there's still violence, unrest, and instability? I have no idea why -- the plan was perfect from day one and it was the only way to solve the world's security problem. It must be an outside force, as the difficulty we're experiencing could never come from within a country we've fully "liberated". Yes, it must be some other entity interfering, someone else that supports the Axis of Evil. It must be Iran, right? What can we possibly do to solve that problem?

I often hear that we're in Iraq because of WMDs/genocide and I often hear that we are there to fight terrorism. By removing the dictator to solve the first problem, we've increased the other. All the air superiority and weaponry in the world will not change people's minds that are set through religion and hundreds of years of cultural differences. Our army is not equipped to do that. We may have removed a dictator, but that thing you fear so much, terrorism, is being made worse by our actions and the power vacuum we created.

UN rules, international policy, and morals aside, the money, manpower, time, and lives wasted in this war could have been better used to build a successful security force here at home. $366,000,000,000+ would have purchased plenty of x-ray machines, metal detectors, radiation scanners, port security, biological agent detectors, and other federal infrastructure to keep out all those WMDs that didn't even exist in the first place. Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.

Is the solution to stop these new terrorists to overthrow the governments of the countries they are coming from? Gee, what do you think would happen if we did that?

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us, that there would be no corruption, that no one would attempt to take advantage of a population that grew up under tyranny in a country where a myriad of religious and political groups, both internal and external, were straining to kill each other and take over. You could call that the fault of someone's optimistic dream, but I tend to think we might have, oh, rushed into this war without too much thought. We just needed to do it. It was the only way.

Oh, if only someone could have warned us! Too bad the only people opposed to this war want us to lose it!

I'd say I'm thankful we didn't destabilize the entire region, but with the recent words coming out against Iran, I don't want to speak too soon.

[skysidhe]

I think this was very well said. I applaud you.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us,

'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President.The writing was on the wall for anyone to see. It was the perverbail 'Emperors new clothes' People were told what to see and they saw it.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, if only someone could have warned us!

I heard lots of warnings at the time. I havn't heard the administration bemoaning that. I hear alot of denial though.


Just my personal thoughts as I was reading. I very good read too Kitsune!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

big snip ~ Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.~ big snip

Iraq is going to take forever to stabilize and heal. Fortunately Afghanistan, because we were busy in Iraq, has almost completely healed.
Except for a couple small areas the Canadians and Aussies are controlling, the Taliban holds sway again. The poppy crops are buying materiel, the girls have been kicked out of the schools, that is the ones that haven't been torn down.
Yes sir, Afghanistan is almost healed.

You know if we'd spent all that money on oil-less Afghanistan it would be all screwed up. With decent roads think of the injured children from speeding vehicles. With clean water supplies, they would lose the ability to build up their immune systems. With sustainable crops, they'd pick up all kinds of diverse food to have to learn how to prepare, which would take away from begging time. Without the taliban they would have to go to school, get literate, learn to think, and make decisions that have always been made for them. Oh, the pressure, oh, the humanity.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt.

And like I said, you shouldn't have to look in a resolution to find it. "Don't invade" is the universal default. Failing to say "do invade" is equivalent to saying "don't".

No, there was nothing giving a go for an invasion... there were some conditions setting up discussions for possible actions.
I'll double check, but I'm fairly sure of my facts.
The UN never OK'd the invasion & has not to this day.
He did open all access at the 11th hour anyway, it was at the last min. but he complied, regardless.

[DanaC]

For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers:

Explain to me then Guantanamo Bay. Explain to me how a state which supposedly values freedom and justice would seek to remove habeas corpus and the basics of a free trial? Don't get me wrong UG, this isn't just a slam against America: the UK now has several citizens under house arrest, their choice of where to live removed; their homes subject to summarary search; their right to use telephones, internet and other telecoms removed; their movements scrutinised and checked through the wearing of tags.......and all with no trial and no right to see the evidence against them.

[Phil]

interesting UG, but i'm not persuaded, as aren't most others who have replied to your posts.
the invasion was illegal : one of the few facts that are black and white in this whole sorry mess. could you give an example of one "war" where America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?
i agree with Dana C : you are an incredibly intelligent person who seems to fall for the bullshit on the spoon they feed you with.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Phil

America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?

Actually, we made out like bandits from the Spanish-American War, which may have been started by a boiler explosion on the Maine.

The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America that took place from April to August 1898. The war ended in victory for the United States and the end of the Spanish Empire in the Caribbean and Pacific. Only 113 days after the outbreak of war, the Treaty of Paris, which ended the conflict, gave the United States control over the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, and control over the process of independence of Cuba, which was completed in 1902.

Not to mention that it gave us an excuse to annex Hawaii. Now one could argue that the Philippines is costing us more than it's contributing, but we definitely made out with Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Philippines and Guam do have strategic value.

Those were the grand old days when you could wave the flag with one hand to distract the suckers while grabbing up real estate with the other.

[deadbeater]

They're some mighty big hands to grab real estate with.

[piercehawkeye45]

How did Iraq fail to comply?

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How did Iraq fail to comply?

Here are a few....



Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

Here are a few....
Whereas Iraq ....
Whereas the current Iraqi regime ...
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has ....

And not one "Therefore American can attack Iraq". Notice how Ronald Cherrycoke posts a half truth. Notice how he forget to the the part that says, "Therefore military action is justified." Why does he forget? That part never existed.

Ahh, but when does permission ever stop crooks or liars - Nixon or George Jr?

[DanaC]

Oh well, as long as America says it doesn't need international approval for preemptive strikes against another nation state, then obviously that doesn't run counter to international law.

[DanaC]

What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion

Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.

By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.

All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom? Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against? What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?