America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[PsychoSerenity]

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

There isn't a stable government there yet. I would agree the Iraq War has been quite successful so far, but it's not over until the postwar situation stabilizes. There needs to be some follow through.

I don't see how it can be called a victory or a success without knowing what the intended purpose of the whole thing was. And since the reasons for the war, that we've been told of, have changed so many times, I can't call it anything other than a complete fucking disaster that killed several hundred thousand people, for no obvious reason whatsoever.

[Warren Dew]

You spend money on your own streets, maybe that's investment. You spend it on Iraq's streets. How is that an investment for the US taxpayer.?

The U.S. is a maritime nationwith a mercantile economy. As such, critical economic regions throughout the world, including the middle east, affect us greatly, and it behooves us to help them stay stable and either friendly to us or at least not inimical to us.

Now you are taking the piss. Do you have any idea at all of how much $1,000,000,000,000 is?

It's about 1% of the U.S. GDP over the seven years that it was spent. It's not as if it were all spent in one year.

[mistermack]

You spend money on your own streets, maybe that's investment. You spend it on Iraq's streets. How is that an investment for the US taxpayer.?

The U.S. is a maritime nationwith a mercantile economy. As such, critical economic regions throughout the world, including the middle east, affect us greatly, and it behooves us to help them stay stable and either friendly to us or at least not inimical to us.

Now you are taking the piss. Do you have any idea at all of how much $1,000,000,000,000 is?

It's about 1% of the U.S. GDP over the seven years that it was spent. It's not as if it were all spent in one year.

It's getting sillier by the minute. We will keep killing them, till they are stable and friendly. And now, Iraq is so stable and friendly, it needs 50,000 US troops and special forces to keep it that way.
And what has the GDP got to do with anything? The govornment can't spend the GDP, can it?
I suppose you find this silly stuff amusing. It usually comes out when someone has lost the argument. I wouldn't worry about that. It was never there to be won in the first place. Anyone would struggle proving that black is white.
.

[kiki5711]

That would be a "loan". "Investment" has a broader meaning - a government can invest in better streets, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have to charge tolls.

Is that why the toll on the Verezano bridge keeps going up every single year? Cause there'll be no tolls? The toll was suppose to pay off the bridge and upkeep. It is now collecting so much money you could buy the Moon in one week. The bridge is paid off, there's hardly ever any construction on it.

Tolls are going to rise on highways everywhere, cause it brings good income without a choice by the drivers. They need to get somewhere, they'll pay.

to back up a bit. the war started, I think cause it was believed Saddam had WMD. Is that correct. He was found, killed. No WMD were found. Then all of a sudden the Taliban was there somewhere cause of 9/11 so the war had to continue. THen it went on for a few years, not really clear for what, but it went on anyway, then people complained and demanded troops come back. So, now troops are coming back, saying the war is over, that we've won, (even though Bin Laden is still not found) (Taliban still amock) but we've won and we're coming home, except 50,000 troops that are staying to protect our investement. THen once the "Investement" is secured that it is coming back home with the troops, then we leave completely.

In the mean time, the Iraqui people are kind of walking around like zombies not knowing really what to do.

I may have some of the things in the wrong order, but this is probably the impression most people have about Iraq. None of it clear, and none of it understood.

[sandinista]

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

There isn't a stable government there yet. I would agree the Iraq War has been quite successful so far, but it's not over until the postwar situation stabilizes. There needs to be some follow through.

I don't see how it can be called a victory or a success without knowing what the intended purpose of the whole thing was. And since the reasons for the war, that we've been told of, have changed so many times, I can't call it anything other than a complete fucking disaster that killed several hundred thousand people, for no obvious reason whatsoever.

No shit, obviously not a victory of any kind. Unless, of course the goal was to install military bases in Iraq and have US control over the region. Then, yes, I suppose ti was a victory. IMO Vietnam, which is often considered a loss by the US was, in reality a victory. The US had a goal, it was to destroy the entire country, kill millions and set them back decades so that "communism", or more precisely, a "second way" could never be successful. Same goes for most of the Latin American invasions. Kind of like.."you think you can run your country independently from the US and not kneel to our foreign policy, well, OK, we'll just destroy your country so no growth will be possible. Vietnam and Laos are still picking up unexploded bombs.

[Coito ergo sum]

So then... who's next? :twisted:

Difficult to say. Nobody is "next" unless there is a legitimate reason to go in. The two that should be on the top of the list should be North Korea and Iran. Right now, unfortunately, there is little, if any, international will to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and all we hear is mere idle talk and blustering on the part of western countries. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapon tech, and delivery systems, including but not limited to unmanned drones, that will be able to deliver these nuclear weapons to western countries. Before long, they will be able to reach western Europe reliably. Once it's at Europe's doorstep, they may think to do something. Until then, it's the same pattern over and over again. Metaphorically, Europe will never stop Hitler in 1933 or 1936. They'll wait until 1939.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

There isn't a stable government there yet. I would agree the Iraq War has been quite successful so far, but it's not over until the postwar situation stabilizes. There needs to be some follow through.

I don't see how it can be called a victory or a success without knowing what the intended purpose of the whole thing was. And since the reasons for the war, that we've been told of, have changed so many times, I can't call it anything other than a complete fucking disaster that killed several hundred thousand people, for no obvious reason whatsoever.

The only way one can think the reasons for the war have "changed so many times" is if one's understanding is limited to snippets and soundbites.

In 2002, the reasons for the war were as follows:

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's programs to develop WMD, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." And, the allegation that it had certain types of WMD's already.
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. The policy of the US (since 1998) to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

What changed since 2002?

[PsychoSerenity]

The only way one can think the reasons for the war have "changed so many times" is if one's understanding is limited to snippets and soundbites.

In 2002, the reasons for the war were as follows:

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's programs to develop WMD, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." And, the allegation that it had certain types of WMD's already.
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. The policy of the US (since 1998) to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

What changed since 2002?

What's your source for this? - I only ask because a lot of it seems either, at odds with what I've heard, or obviously wrong, - and even if it were all correct and accurate, still not good reason for war - apart from the last few points, which aren't so much reasons for war, as decisions to go to war regardless.

[Coito ergo sum]

The only way one can think the reasons for the war have "changed so many times" is if one's understanding is limited to snippets and soundbites.

In 2002, the reasons for the war were as follows:

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's programs to develop WMD, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." And, the allegation that it had certain types of WMD's already.
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. The policy of the US (since 1998) to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

What changed since 2002?

What's your source for this? - I only ask because a lot of it seems either, at odds with what I've heard, or obviously wrong, - and even if it were all correct and accurate, still not good reason for war - apart from the last few points, which aren't so much reasons for war, as decisions to go to war regardless.

It's what the United States Congress explicitly stated were reasons for the war, when they voted to provide authorization to the President on October 16, 2002. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002.

Obviously wrong? Other than the after-the-fact finding that no substantial WMD were found, what was obviously wrong in 2002?

[PsychoSerenity]

It's what the United States Congress explicitly stated were reasons for the war, when they voted to provide authorization to the President on October 16, 2002. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002.

Obviously wrong? Other than the after-the-fact finding that no substantial WMD were found, what was obviously wrong in 2002?

Well for a start I remember hearing weapons inspectors being fairly confident there were no WMD before the war.

5. "Firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones" is simply not "hostility towards the United States".

7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

Again I don't think there was ever any evidence for this.

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Like I said, none of this is a good reason for war, when there were other options. And it can't be called successful at preventing "brutal repression of civilian population" with the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have been killed.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's what the United States Congress explicitly stated were reasons for the war, when they voted to provide authorization to the President on October 16, 2002. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002.

Obviously wrong? Other than the after-the-fact finding that no substantial WMD were found, what was obviously wrong in 2002?

Well for a start I remember hearing weapons inspectors being fairly confident there were no WMD before the war.

They also said they were not permitted to look everywhere they wanted to look, and they said Iraq's disclosures were insufficient. They had not found WMD, that much is true, and substantial WMD were not found after the fact either (although evidence of weapons programs were found).

5. "Firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones" is simply not "hostility towards the United States".

The planes were American, and the other element of hostility was the attempted assassination of the former President Bush the elder.

7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

Again I don't think there was ever any evidence for this.

Abu Nidal.

Provided financial and diplomatic support to Abu Abbas - who was involved in the Achille Lauro affair.

Hussein used to hand out bonus checks to families of suicide bombers who killed thousands, including some Americans.

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Because it's one of many factors. Not all factors have to be unique to Iraq. Iraq was unique in having such an array of factors applicable to it, though.

Also - we weren't really arguing the substance of all this. Your assertion was that the "reasons kept changing." They didn't. They were the same all the way through. The reasons that the idiots on CBC and ABC news, and equivalent media, focused on changed. But, from the very beginning, there were a host of reasons in the offing. None of which changed, until after the war, when it became apparent that there weren't large stocks of WMD.

[PsychoSerenity]

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Because it's one of many factors. Not all factors have to be unique to Iraq. Iraq was unique in having such an array of factors applicable to it, though.

Also - we weren't really arguing the substance of all this. Your assertion was that the "reasons kept changing." They didn't. They were the same all the way through. The reasons that the idiots on CBC and ABC news, and equivalent media, focused on changed. But, from the very beginning, there were a host of reasons in the offing. None of which changed, until after the war, when it became apparent that there weren't large stocks of WMD.

Well I was arguing that I didn't see how this war could be considered a success, or a victory, given that the official reasons for it seemed to add up to "There are things going on that America doesn't like, so let's have a war" - and your list of reasons have done nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Coito ergo sum]

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Because it's one of many factors. Not all factors have to be unique to Iraq. Iraq was unique in having such an array of factors applicable to it, though.

Also - we weren't really arguing the substance of all this. Your assertion was that the "reasons kept changing." They didn't. They were the same all the way through. The reasons that the idiots on CBC and ABC news, and equivalent media, focused on changed. But, from the very beginning, there were a host of reasons in the offing. None of which changed, until after the war, when it became apparent that there weren't large stocks of WMD.

Well I was arguing that I didn't see how this war could be considered a success, or a victory, given that the official reasons for it seemed to add up to "There are things going on that America doesn't like, so let's have a war" - and your list of reasons have done nothing to suggest otherwise.

I beg to differ. The allegations of Iraq's violation of the cease fire accords, as well as Iraq's violations of United Nations resolutions (12 of them), required action which was overdue. That wasn't just "stuff the US didn't like."

[Pensioner]

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Because it's one of many factors. Not all factors have to be unique to Iraq. Iraq was unique in having such an array of factors applicable to it, though.

Also - we weren't really arguing the substance of all this. Your assertion was that the "reasons kept changing." They didn't. They were the same all the way through. The reasons that the idiots on CBC and ABC news, and equivalent media, focused on changed. But, from the very beginning, there were a host of reasons in the offing. None of which changed, until after the war, when it became apparent that there weren't large stocks of WMD.

Well I was arguing that I didn't see how this war could be considered a success, or a victory, given that the official reasons for it seemed to add up to "There are things going on that America doesn't like, so let's have a war" - and your list of reasons have done nothing to suggest otherwise.

I beg to differ. The allegations of Iraq's violation of the cease fire accords, as well as Iraq's violations of United Nations resolutions (12 of them), required action which was overdue. That wasn't just "stuff the US didn't like."

Fucking 12 of them have a look at this lot.

1. Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
2. Resolution 250: (April 27) " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
3. Resolution 251: (May 2) " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
4. Resolution 252: (May 21) " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
5. Resolution 256: (August 16) " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
6. Resolution 258: (September 18)
7. Resolution 259: (September 27) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
8. Resolution 262: (December 31) " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
9. Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan".
10. Resolution 267: (July 3) " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
11. Resolution 270: (August 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
12. Resolution 271: (September 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
13. Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) "Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."(full text)
14. Resolution 280: (May 19) " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
15. Resolution 285: (September 5) " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
16. Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
17. Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
18. Resolution 316: (June 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
19. Resolution 317: (July 21) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
20. Resolution 331: (April 20, 1973)
21. Resolution 332: (April 21) " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
22. Resolution 337: (August 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space".
23. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): " ...'calls' for a cease fire" in Yom Kippur War and "the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts", and "Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
24. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
25. Resolution 340 (25 October): "Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed, per 338 and 339, and requests to increase the number of United Nations military observers
26. Resolution 341 (27 October): "Approves the report on the implementation resolution 340
27. Resolution 344 (15 December)
28. Resolution 346 (April 8, 1974)
29. Resolution 347: (April 24)" ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
30. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
31. Resolution 362 (October 23) decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for another six months
32. Resolution 363 (November 29), regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
33. Resolution 368 (April 17, 1975)
34. Resolution 369
35. Resolution 371
36. Resolution 378
37. Resolution 381
38. Resolution 390
39. Resolution 396
40. Resolution 398
41. Resolution 408
42. Resolution 416
43. Resolution 420

[Coito ergo sum]

- And much of this is worded so vaguely it could apply to many different countries - so why Iraq?

Because it's one of many factors. Not all factors have to be unique to Iraq. Iraq was unique in having such an array of factors applicable to it, though.

Also - we weren't really arguing the substance of all this. Your assertion was that the "reasons kept changing." They didn't. They were the same all the way through. The reasons that the idiots on CBC and ABC news, and equivalent media, focused on changed. But, from the very beginning, there were a host of reasons in the offing. None of which changed, until after the war, when it became apparent that there weren't large stocks of WMD.

Well I was arguing that I didn't see how this war could be considered a success, or a victory, given that the official reasons for it seemed to add up to "There are things going on that America doesn't like, so let's have a war" - and your list of reasons have done nothing to suggest otherwise.

I beg to differ. The allegations of Iraq's violation of the cease fire accords, as well as Iraq's violations of United Nations resolutions (12 of them), required action which was overdue. That wasn't just "stuff the US didn't like."

Fucking 12 of them have a look at this lot.

1. Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
2. Resolution 250: (April 27) " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
3. Resolution 251: (May 2) " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
4. Resolution 252: (May 21) " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
5. Resolution 256: (August 16) " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
6. Resolution 258: (September 18)
7. Resolution 259: (September 27) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
8. Resolution 262: (December 31) " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
9. Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan".
10. Resolution 267: (July 3) " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
11. Resolution 270: (August 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
12. Resolution 271: (September 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
13. Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) "Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."(full text)
14. Resolution 280: (May 19) " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
15. Resolution 285: (September 5) " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
16. Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
17. Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
18. Resolution 316: (June 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
19. Resolution 317: (July 21) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
20. Resolution 331: (April 20, 1973)
21. Resolution 332: (April 21) " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
22. Resolution 337: (August 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space".
23. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): " ...'calls' for a cease fire" in Yom Kippur War and "the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts", and "Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
24. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
25. Resolution 340 (25 October): "Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed, per 338 and 339, and requests to increase the number of United Nations military observers
26. Resolution 341 (27 October): "Approves the report on the implementation resolution 340
27. Resolution 344 (15 December)
28. Resolution 346 (April 8, 1974)
29. Resolution 347: (April 24)" ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
30. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
31. Resolution 362 (October 23) decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for another six months
32. Resolution 363 (November 29), regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
33. Resolution 368 (April 17, 1975)
34. Resolution 369
35. Resolution 371
36. Resolution 378
37. Resolution 381
38. Resolution 390
39. Resolution 396
40. Resolution 398
41. Resolution 408
42. Resolution 416
43. Resolution 420

What's your point?