If you do not believe that GWB's crusade was just, then when and for what reason should Saddam have been removed from power?
Was the War in Iraq justified?
No.
"When and for what reason should have been removed?"
He should NOT have been removed. Not because he's a nice guy- he was a monster. But because having him there was preferable to the shitstorm we have now.
He had no WMDs, he had no connections to Islamic radicals or terrorists. He was just a paltry secular strongman ruler and compared to the current situation, was the lesser of two evils.
EDIT: If one was to insist on removing him, a better approach would have been to simply get rid of him, while allowing the Baath'ist power structure to remain intact, so as not to create a power vacuum. A newer, less sadistic leader have the opportunity to step up and perhaps be more humane/reasonable, but yeah, that's not how things played out...
"When and for what reason should have been removed?"
He should NOT have been removed. Not because he's a nice guy- he was a monster. But because having him there was preferable to the shitstorm we have now.
He had no WMDs, he had no connections to Islamic radicals or terrorists. He was just a paltry secular strongman ruler and compared to the current situation, was the lesser of two evils.
EDIT: If one was to insist on removing him, a better approach would have been to simply get rid of him, while allowing the Baath'ist power structure to remain intact, so as not to create a power vacuum. A newer, less sadistic leader have the opportunity to step up and perhaps be more humane/reasonable, but yeah, that's not how things played out...
The Peru Thread
"Feminists exist in a quantum super-state in which they are both simultaneously the victim and the aggressor." - Milo Yiannopoulos
Quote: (02-14-2015 08:44 AM)Sanji Wrote:
If you do not believe that GWB's crusade was just, then when and for what reason should Saddam have been removed from power?
Saddam was small potatoes all things considered. Anyone with even a remote interest in Middle Eastern affairs could have told you that the Saudi elite were infinitely more destabilizing, dangerous, and an insidious influence on the region.
He threatened the dollar if I'm not mistaken. That's a big no no
Is trolling justified?
"Me llaman el desaparecido
Que cuando llega ya se ha ido
Volando vengo, volando voy
Deprisa deprisa a rumbo perdido"
America tried to fight a nice guy war and got friendzoned by the world
I'm new to this forum let me just start a thread that will cause a giant argument ![[Image: lol.gif]](http://www.rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
It's 8:41 am here and I already need a shot of whiskey.
I don't think this deserves its own thread, but of course it wasn't justified.
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Funny that I see this topic posted because I was just thinking this morning about the war in Iraq. What do you guys think is the true reason we went in? I know everyone reflexively says it was for oil. But as I think more about that, I have to question if it's really true. We get less than 5% of our oil from Iraq, and we actually got more oil from them before the war. It's written into Iraq's constitution that Iraqis are the owners of their oil. The US even made sure that was written in their constitution. China is the biggest buyer of Iraqi oil. If we needed access to oil, couldn't we have just dropped the sanctions? From what I recall, Saddam had no qualms with selling oil to America, nor was there any oil shortage in 2003. The only thing people can point to is that contractors made a lot of money from the war. But contractors always make money from wars because they are providing weapons, hardware and advanced skills that our government cannot provide on its own, and these companies obviously don't do these things for free.
What has America gotten from Iraq financially speaking? If the war was for oil, 12 years later, how have we benefited from this oil?
What has America gotten from Iraq financially speaking? If the war was for oil, 12 years later, how have we benefited from this oil?
Nope
Unleashed the chaos on Iraq that we now see.
Saddam had no nukes.
ISIS is much worse than Saddam ever was.
We see now what happens when we knock down these dictators, chaos and Islamic extremism. Everyone in the world besides ISIS probably wishes Saddam was back in control of Iraq.
Unleashed the chaos on Iraq that we now see.
Saddam had no nukes.
ISIS is much worse than Saddam ever was.
We see now what happens when we knock down these dictators, chaos and Islamic extremism. Everyone in the world besides ISIS probably wishes Saddam was back in control of Iraq.
Quote: (02-14-2015 12:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
Funny that I see this topic posted because I was just thinking this morning about the war in Iraq. What do you guys think is the true reason we went in? I know everyone reflexively says it was for oil. But as I think more about that, I have to question if it's really true. We get less than 5% of our oil from Iraq, and we actually got more oil from them before the war. It's written into Iraq's constitution that Iraqis are the owners of their oil. The US even made sure that was written in their constitution. China is the biggest buyer of Iraqi oil. If we needed access to oil, couldn't we have just dropped the sanctions? From what I recall, Saddam had no qualms with selling oil to America, nor was there any oil shortage in 2003. The only thing people can point to is that contractors made a lot of money from the war. But contractors always make money from wars because they are providing weapons, hardware and advanced skills that our government cannot provide on its own, and these companies obviously don't do these things for free.
What has America gotten from Iraq financially speaking? If the war was for oil, 12 years later, how have we benefited from this oil?
I agree with you. I have been saying this for years.
On top of that there is the whole Bakken reserve where even though at the time the US didn't have the technology to make it worthwhile, the gov't surely knew it was a matter of time (the Bakken is the largest proven oil reserve in the world to my knowledge).
I actually wonder if this could be more because Saddam was a scum bag and GWB seems the altruistic sort or if perhaps it's because Saddam tried to have his dad assassinated and then used the whole terrorist thing as a reason to go to war and take him out.
The whole "corporations make money" sounds like typical hippie bullshit since most don't even understand economics and that doesn't really hold up.
I think that incredibly the administration wanted to believe he was responsible and so they did whatever they could to make it plausible.
The war in Iraq was not justified in any way. They lied about why the war was needed to start with. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States like they said, he might have been brutal but he kept that country somewhat stable.
Even if they had said "we must liberate Iraq from Hussein" instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it wouldn't be justified, because foreign scumbags should be of no concern to the U.S. provided they aren't a threat.
When Assad was gassing his own people my stance was "let him." There were already rumors about the shadiness of the rebels and look what we have now.
The Ukraine situation is the same. Let Russia have it!
Even if they had said "we must liberate Iraq from Hussein" instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it wouldn't be justified, because foreign scumbags should be of no concern to the U.S. provided they aren't a threat.
When Assad was gassing his own people my stance was "let him." There were already rumors about the shadiness of the rebels and look what we have now.
The Ukraine situation is the same. Let Russia have it!
Dammit, I was honestly trying to stop posting about Islam and cultural stuff but terrorist attacks and trolls pop up repeatedly like the herpes.
There is no shortage of elementary, naive arguments coming from the general public ("War for oil!" and "Halliburton stocks!") when the truth is infinitely more complicated to anyone with even a basic grasp of geopolitics and history.
Iraq is one little square on the chess board. Afghanistan is another little square on the chessboard. No chess master is going to reveal his grand strategy on the nightly news to a public that thinks there's a "war on women" or that climate change is a hoax.
Our government is smarter than the public thinks, and the public is much dumber than the public thinks.
There is no shortage of elementary, naive arguments coming from the general public ("War for oil!" and "Halliburton stocks!") when the truth is infinitely more complicated to anyone with even a basic grasp of geopolitics and history.
Iraq is one little square on the chess board. Afghanistan is another little square on the chessboard. No chess master is going to reveal his grand strategy on the nightly news to a public that thinks there's a "war on women" or that climate change is a hoax.
Our government is smarter than the public thinks, and the public is much dumber than the public thinks.
Neo-cons probably thought they could install democracy in the middle east and Iraq would be the new Germany or Japan. They fired anyone who opposed that view before the war within the administration. Then they went to war and realized men in the middle east play by a different set of rules altogether.
The US government is too clumsy to be part of a grand conspiracy.
The US government is too clumsy to be part of a grand conspiracy.
I think Bush wanted to kick some ass over 9/11, like the US did over Pearl Harbor. I believe he would have liked to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and maybe even N Korea and Cuba for good measure. At the time, it appeared there were only a handful of rogue states, and there was a trend towards more and more states becoming democracies, and of the Freedom index rankings for the world's nations to all be on the rise.
He thought if he stood tough and confronted the bad guys, order could be established, as an acceleration of existing trends. He thought the preeminence of the US military would make this possible. Also, remember he was still sitting on a budget surplus in 2001. The US national debt was actually shrinking at that time.
I believed these things at the time, and there were plenty of bloggers and pundits who felt the same. Frankly, it was this scenario that lead Democrats like Hillary to vote for the action in Iraq, because they thought it would work out this way as well.
Hindsight is 20/20, but at that time, a lot of people believed this scenario.
He thought if he stood tough and confronted the bad guys, order could be established, as an acceleration of existing trends. He thought the preeminence of the US military would make this possible. Also, remember he was still sitting on a budget surplus in 2001. The US national debt was actually shrinking at that time.
I believed these things at the time, and there were plenty of bloggers and pundits who felt the same. Frankly, it was this scenario that lead Democrats like Hillary to vote for the action in Iraq, because they thought it would work out this way as well.
Hindsight is 20/20, but at that time, a lot of people believed this scenario.
I'm the tower of power, too sweet to be sour. I'm funky like a monkey. Sky's the limit and space is the place!
-Randy Savage
Quote: (02-14-2015 01:16 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:
Dammit, I was honestly trying to stop posting about Islam and cultural stuff but terrorist attacks and trolls pop up repeatedly like the herpes.
There is no shortage of elementary, naive arguments coming from the general public ("War for oil!" and "Halliburton stocks!") when the truth is infinitely more complicated to anyone with even a basic grasp of geopolitics and history.
Iraq is one little square on the chess board. Afghanistan is another little square on the chessboard. No chess master is going to reveal his grand strategy on the nightly news to a public that thinks there's a "war on women" or that climate change is a hoax.
Our government is smarter than the public thinks, and the public is much dumber than the public thinks.
I was going to totally agree with you, BM, but then that last sentence. . . .
I was involved in the Fiasco as a policy/program factotum. One of the effects on me is a loss of faith in: (1) the intelligence of our ruling elites; (2) the goodness of our ruling elites. There are a lot of generals, assistant secretaries, ambassadors who have no common sense and not even base knowledge. At the beginning in 2003, nobody had any idea what the fuck was going on in Iraq, not on streets, not in the Iraqi "government."
In addition to that, our ruling elites will put their own career interests way above the well-being of Americans, let alone Iraqis or Afghans.
The saying about money and bullshit is not true - Bullshit does rule. Because bullshit brings the money.
Iraq was a mistake from the US side. The only question is whether it was a mistake in concept, or a mistake in execution.
The reasons for invading Iraq were, in no particular order:
Oil - not to secure particular contracts, but to increase production to sustain the petroleum economy.
Neocon Trotskyite desire to spread democracy and change the political paradigm in the Middle East.
Get rid of a threat to Israel.
Possible WMD - I saw some of the ammo dumps, there was no way anyone could be sure what was being hidden in that country. This was greatly exaggerated, though - the Iraqis were no closer to building an atomic bomb than Paraguay is, and the national authorities knew it. There could have been anthrax or Sarin. The October 2001 anthrax attacks were probably a false flag to push the war narrative.
Personal enmity of the Bush family against Saddam following the assassination plot against Poppy Bush.
I'll add another point based on reading military strategists, historians and Arab scholars on the event of both the American war on terror conflicts. Geography is strongly linked in many of these scholars opinions and Pakistan's continued instability loomed over much of the pre-9/11 years and after. I have some links to sources that say, like sp5 mentioned, that the Baath government had chemical weapons, but my computer has a "hard disk failure" apparently so I'm not sure when you guys will see those links. Sorry
To answer the OP's question:
- Based on what we now know: the war wasn't justified. No WMD's were found, so the pretex did not end up panning out. Sadaam had repeatedly broken the UN restrictions imposed on him after the first Gulf War, and Clinton & W. Bush both signed off on military strikes throughout the 90's and prior to the ground invasion. But that wasn't the justification for the war. Maybe if the White House had changed the narrative at the time.
- Based on what we knew at the time: yes, the war was justified. The faulty intelligence had been backed by numerous intelligence agencies, including that of other countries. If the president was provided evidence that Sadaam had WMD's, he was justified in calling for Sadaam's removal.
The folks who spew vapid shouts of "they're invading for the oil!" and "war profiteering!" are simply millenial and generation x'ers stuck in a state of arrested development, who need to transform opposing sides of an argument to one-dimensional causes. I've never heard anyone who claims the war was for oil explain how that would work. The US gov't doesn't own the oil companies, and many of the countries with the largest oil companies that operate in the US (like Dutch Shell) weren't even involved in the invasion. Also, even with an invasion, how would that lead to Iraq leaving OPEC (under which it's production and pricing is dictated)?
At the end of the day, you never know what "might have been" had the US & Allies not invaded Iraq. There was already a growing trend of militant separatists within Islamic countries. If Iraq wouldn't have been such fertile ground for it thanks to the instability of the war, then it may have cropped up way, wayyyyy moreso in Pakistan, which has the bomb.
- Based on what we now know: the war wasn't justified. No WMD's were found, so the pretex did not end up panning out. Sadaam had repeatedly broken the UN restrictions imposed on him after the first Gulf War, and Clinton & W. Bush both signed off on military strikes throughout the 90's and prior to the ground invasion. But that wasn't the justification for the war. Maybe if the White House had changed the narrative at the time.
- Based on what we knew at the time: yes, the war was justified. The faulty intelligence had been backed by numerous intelligence agencies, including that of other countries. If the president was provided evidence that Sadaam had WMD's, he was justified in calling for Sadaam's removal.
The folks who spew vapid shouts of "they're invading for the oil!" and "war profiteering!" are simply millenial and generation x'ers stuck in a state of arrested development, who need to transform opposing sides of an argument to one-dimensional causes. I've never heard anyone who claims the war was for oil explain how that would work. The US gov't doesn't own the oil companies, and many of the countries with the largest oil companies that operate in the US (like Dutch Shell) weren't even involved in the invasion. Also, even with an invasion, how would that lead to Iraq leaving OPEC (under which it's production and pricing is dictated)?
At the end of the day, you never know what "might have been" had the US & Allies not invaded Iraq. There was already a growing trend of militant separatists within Islamic countries. If Iraq wouldn't have been such fertile ground for it thanks to the instability of the war, then it may have cropped up way, wayyyyy moreso in Pakistan, which has the bomb.
Quote: (02-14-2015 07:39 PM)markygras Wrote:
- Based on what we knew at the time: yes, the war was justified. The faulty intelligence had been backed by numerous intelligence agencies, including that of other countries. If the president was provided evidence that Sadaam had WMD's, he was justified in calling for Sadaam's removal.
You have to be fairly naive to swallow this.
America isn't justified to invade any country for any reason but one.
It is an empire and is the strongest nation on the earth. So "The Strong do what they can and the Weak Suffer what they must."
The WMD's was smokescreen to distract the masses and keep them from getting upset about the US outright invading a sovereign nation and overthrowing it's government.
The war was justified assuming the result would have been a self-sustaining democracy in the middle east.
Obviously, that was a very naïve point of view. We have to accept the fact that many cultures simply don't want a democracy nor can they even take care of themselves. America is exceptional. White Euros who founded America are exceptional. We can't shape the rest of the world to be like us.
Perhaps USA was too optimistic about human nature.....if somehow we removed the 'bad guys', these third world countries will be vibrant democracies like ours.
I consider the reasoning for the Iraq war similar to the reasons why western nations send billions in aid to Africa. We think we can shape non-westerners to be like us and help them into prosperity. The real mistake with Iraq was assuming we could actually help and jump-star them into democracy.
Obviously, that was a very naïve point of view. We have to accept the fact that many cultures simply don't want a democracy nor can they even take care of themselves. America is exceptional. White Euros who founded America are exceptional. We can't shape the rest of the world to be like us.
Perhaps USA was too optimistic about human nature.....if somehow we removed the 'bad guys', these third world countries will be vibrant democracies like ours.
I consider the reasoning for the Iraq war similar to the reasons why western nations send billions in aid to Africa. We think we can shape non-westerners to be like us and help them into prosperity. The real mistake with Iraq was assuming we could actually help and jump-star them into democracy.
It never ceases to amaze me how a forum full of guys who bandy about the term "red pill" can regurgitate government propaganda so often.
Yeah, I've always been a bit confused because America is supposed to be such a horribly imperialist country, but... we're really bad at it. We keep giving back the countries we take over, usually with a shitload of aid in the process. Do we try to install pro-American governments? Yes, but that's not imperialism. Words mean things.
Anyway, as to the war being justified, yes, the invasion was justified based on the intelligence we had 12-13 years ago. Contrary to the popular refrain, WMDs were not the only reason for invading Iraq. WMDs that were, in fact, present, by the way. Even the retards at the NY Times admitted it not too long ago.
I firmly believe the US, and the west in general, would have seen a shitload more terrorist activity if coalition forces hadn't been in Iraq and Afghanistan acting as a lightning rod for all the extremists in the Middle East. Yet nobody ever brings that point up. We fought plenty of non-Iraqis in Iraq, you know. At least one of my friends was killed by a foreign fighter. Why would they go through the hassle of flying all the way to America when they can kill Americans right in their neighbor's yard?
Should we have stayed past 2007? No, I don't think so. Our military objectives were complete, Saddam was toast, and it was obvious even to me, a relatively naive 21 year old that we weren't going to alter the culture significantly without a multi-generation occupation.
What a lot of people fail to realize is the people in Iraq aren't just like Americans or Europeans with different features and a slightly different average skin color. They think in fundamentally different ways. They are foreign in a way your average westerner can't comprehend. So, installing a happy little republic in Iraq without literally indoctrinating a whole generation of their young was never going to happen, because the culture doesn't allow for it.
Anyway, as to the war being justified, yes, the invasion was justified based on the intelligence we had 12-13 years ago. Contrary to the popular refrain, WMDs were not the only reason for invading Iraq. WMDs that were, in fact, present, by the way. Even the retards at the NY Times admitted it not too long ago.
I firmly believe the US, and the west in general, would have seen a shitload more terrorist activity if coalition forces hadn't been in Iraq and Afghanistan acting as a lightning rod for all the extremists in the Middle East. Yet nobody ever brings that point up. We fought plenty of non-Iraqis in Iraq, you know. At least one of my friends was killed by a foreign fighter. Why would they go through the hassle of flying all the way to America when they can kill Americans right in their neighbor's yard?
Should we have stayed past 2007? No, I don't think so. Our military objectives were complete, Saddam was toast, and it was obvious even to me, a relatively naive 21 year old that we weren't going to alter the culture significantly without a multi-generation occupation.
What a lot of people fail to realize is the people in Iraq aren't just like Americans or Europeans with different features and a slightly different average skin color. They think in fundamentally different ways. They are foreign in a way your average westerner can't comprehend. So, installing a happy little republic in Iraq without literally indoctrinating a whole generation of their young was never going to happen, because the culture doesn't allow for it.
Quote: (02-14-2015 01:16 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:
Iraq is one little square on the chess board. Afghanistan is another little square on the chessboard. No chess master is going to reveal his grand strategy on the nightly news to a public that thinks there's a "war on women" or that climate change is a hoax.
Our government is smarter than the public thinks, and the public is much dumber than the public thinks.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media.giphy.com/media/yIsbuPCEOgNHO/giphy.gif)
![[Image: Its-about-damn-time91214-gif.gif]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Its-about-damn-time91214-gif.gif)
Quote: (02-14-2015 08:59 PM)Darius Wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how a forum full of guys who bandy about the term "red pill" can regurgitate government propaganda so often and anti-government propaganda so often.
Fixed.
Unplugging from the matrix--to belabor a metaphor I've grown to rather dislike--means unplugging from everything, not just trading one cable channel's set of talking points with another's.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)