THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

ican711nm wrote:

How many more Americans and Iraqis would be dead or injured casualties if we had not invaded Iraq?

ican711nm wrote:

I'm talking about a scenario where Saddam kills thousands more Iraqies without "his fleet" (a fleet he doesn't have), AND al Qaeda kills thousands more Americans with plastic boxcutters which they have (or can get from any hardware store).

I infer you claim invading Iraq prevented new al Qaeda attacks where airplanes would have been kidnapped by means of plastic boxcutters, then?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You've got to be kidding, JamesMorrison. I think you are.

The US with its supine allies has perpetrated one of the biggest crimes in history, and lied about it, and Ican is one of its biggest apologists.

"One of the biggest crimes in history" -- that's quite a high standard. Do you mean it is up there with the mass exterminations of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? The suppression of the freedom of the people of Eastern Europe for over a generation by the Soviets? The wars of conquest of Louis XVI, Friedrich the Great, Napoleon? The Colonial conquests of the British Empire? The deliberate action by Britain and France to bring down the Ottoman empire in WWI, creating the widespread problems in the Moslem world we are dealing with today? Do you actually mean we are up to European standards in the scale of our murder and exploitation?

I don't think so. This one, even in its worst interpretation, doesn't rise even to the level of your relatively minor crimes, like the Crimean War or the Boer War. Certainly it isn't even in the same league as the folly and horrific, utterly pointless destruction of WWI.

In this area, even as described by our critics, we are rather amateurish and minor players compared to you.

To those who see our action as contributing to the breaking of a destructive impasse in the political development of the former Ottoman Empire, our actions are of course quite a different thing altogether.

McTag is much given to this kind of hyperbole. However, he never supports it with anything remotely resembling reasoned analysis of the global situation or the historical context in which this situation has arisen.

0 Replies

George,

really just trying to follow your argument: "One of the biggest crimes in history" -- that's quite a high standard.

It is indeed. Nevertheless I would not doubt that you would be quite ready to attach that label to the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

But, compared to the mass exterminations of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, the suppression of the freedom of the people of Eastern Europe for over a generation by the Soviets, the wars of conquest of Louis XVI, Friedrich the Great, Napoleon or the Colonial conquests of the British Empire you could, on the other hand, call the 9/11 attacks a "polite hinting" by Osama bin Laden that he doesn't agree with US politics.

Are you willing to go down this road?

0 Replies

Quite willing to go down that road .

No I would not equate the attacks of 9/11 with any of the above listed events. It was an act of terrorism and destruction, large on the scale of such things, but relatively quite small compared to any of the wars we have been discussing.

However in the real world the 9/11 attack was but one of a series of like attacks that themselves promised more to come and which were indeed proclaimed as the opening events in a new wave of such things by the perpetrators themselves. All this arose from the unhappy state of political development in a Moslem world that was paralyzed in its political development, having only authoritarian and theocratic models for governance, and increasingly in the grip of a sense of injustice, as a result of its previous exploitation by Britain and France, and its persistent inability to compete in the modern world. This was and still is a particularly dangerous situation for the world. We are attempting to break that paralysis in a particularly central place in the former Ottoman Empire, and the effort, though incomplete and still at risk, shows promise of of good effects both in Iraq and in neighboring Moslem states.

0 Replies

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050404121355.mn5gk86n.html

Bomb explodes near Baghdad prison amid jostling for government posts (04/04/2005)
BAGHDAD (AFP)
Five people were wounded in a bomb blast near Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison just two days after a brazen attack on the notorious facility, as Iraqi politicians held more talks to try to agree on the shape of the new government.

"It was a suicide tractor bomber," said one of those wounded in the explosion near the US-run facility west of the capital. Among those hurt were three policemen, according to the interior ministry.

The US military released further details of Saturday's sunset assault on Abu Ghraib, saying there were about 50 casualties among the rebel attackers in an ensuing battle with US-led forces.

It said about 40 to 60 gunmen took part in the two-hour attack which involved two car bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and small arms. About 44 US soldiers and 13 detainees were wounded.

"Apache helicopters and artillery fire began to engage the attackers. The terrorists were forced to withdraw after suffering an estimated 50 casualties," it said in a statement.

An estimated 3,400 Iraqi and Arab prisoners are being held in the facility that was the scene of an prisoner abuse scandal one year ago that tainted the US operations in Iraq.

In other unrest, an Iraqi motorist was badly wounded when foreign security guards shot him for failing to make way for their vehicles on one of the capital's bridges, according to police and witnesses.

Masked gunmen ransacked and torched the offices of the Iraqi Communist Party in Baghdad's Shiite slum of Sadr City were torched on Sunday night, secretary general Hamid Majid Musa told AFP adding the attack caused no casualties.

Communists, who won two seats in the new parliament after years of persecution under the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein, have been the target of many attacks over the past two years that have claimed the lives of at least seven party officials.

On the political front, parliament chose Sunni Muslim Hajem al-Hassani as its speaker Sunday and was set to meet again Wednesday to elect a presidential council, moving the country one step closer to forming a new government more than two months since the landmark elections.

Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani is the favourite to be president -- a clear sign of their new-found power in Iraq after decades of oppression under Saddam -- and his two deputies are expected to be a Shiite Arab and a Sunni Arab.

Most of the bargaining is centred now on these last posts.

The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which has 146 seats in parliament, is anxious to speed up the process of forming the government to crown its sweeping election victory.

"I strongly insist we meet around the clock until we complete all matters relating to the government," said UIA leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim told during Sunday's session that also chose Shiite Hussein Shahristani and Kurd Aref Tayfur as deputy speakers.

The UIA needs the Kurds, with 77 seats, to form a coalition government and both recognise the importance of bringing in the Sunnis, who largely shunned the January 30 elections. In addition to the vice presidency, Sunnis are expected to get four to six cabinet posts.

But as the process of choosing the speaker underlined, Sunnis are splintered and several factions are seeking to represent a community still reeling from its loss of power and privilege when Saddam's regime was deposed two years ago.

A loose affiliation of some 30 groupings called the National Front was set to meet Monday at the home of veteran politician Adnan al-Pachachi, who has announced his candidacy for the vice presidency.

"We will decide today if Pachachi will be our candidate," Nasir al-Ani, a spokesman for the front and a member of the Iraqi Islamic party, which boycotted the elections, told AFP.

Outgoing president Ghazi al-Yawar, who is also member of the front, is trying to cut a deal to be vice president directly with the Shiites and Kurds, with the latter favouring the tribal chieftain.

"We never interfered when they chose their candidates, why are they meddling in our process," Pachachi said of the Shiites and Kurds.

Another Sunni interested in the vice presidency is Sherif Ali bin Hussein, the heir to the country's deposed monarchy, who like Pachachi ran in the elections but failed to win any seats in parliament.

Yawar's Iraqiyun list, of which speaker Hassani is member, has five seats.

"There are still a lot of problems, and frankly it is becoming more like appointment instead of a transparent democratic process," complained Sheikh Fawaz al-Jarba, a Sunni with the UIA who was bypassed for Hassani.

The presidency council requires two-thirds of votes to be approved by parliament. It formally names the prime minister and cabinet and has the power to veto legislative bills, according to the interim laws passed during the US occupation.

Adding to the challenges of forming the government, is a desire by Kurds to bring in outgoing Prime Minister Iyad Allawi into the fold as a way of tempering the influence of Islamic clerics in the UIA.

A member of Allawi's list, which came third in the elections, said they wanted one of the vice presidency posts.

"We are discussing it and we should be able to know one way or another today or tomorrow," Hussein al-Shalaan told AFP.

© AFP

[once again the story can be found on yahoo, but can't link, frustrating, I am thinking i have some kind of worm or something.)

0 Replies

Gerogeob1 writes

Quote:

However in the real world the 9/11 attack was but one of a series of like attacks that themselves promised more to come and which were indeed proclaimed as the opening events in a new wave of such things by the perpetrators themselves. All this arose from the unhappy state of political development in a Moslem world that was paralyzed in its political development, having only authoritarian and theocratic models for governance, and increasingly in the grip of a sense of injustice, as a result of its previous exploitation by Britain and France, and its persistent inability to compete in the modern world. This was and still is a particularly dangerous situation for the world. We are attempting to break that paralysis in a particularly central place in the former Ottoman Empire, and the effort, though incomplete and still at risk, shows promise of of good effects both in Iraq and in neighboring Moslem states.

I would not presume to speak for George as his knowledge and grasp of history quite exceeds my own, but I think we should acknowledge again that the above has been an incidental good consequence of the invasion of Iraq and was not precisely the reason for the Iraq war.

Right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq was to remove a perceived threat in the face of twelve years of thwarted U.N. resolution.s. As it turned out, our intelligence re the threat was wrong; however it is clear to me that Saddam wished for us to continue to believe it as the sanctions were enriching him daily while he continued to neglect his people to death.
And now the Iraqi people have a chance for the first time in their lives to chart and direct their own destiny, and we are seeing one of the 'domino effect' scenarios where others are at least teetering if not already following suit.

Good intentions often have very bad unintended consequences as we discovered in the case of the sanctions. But then other intentions often result in unexpected good consequences as is the case with the Iraq war. I'm not going to knock it. Maybe it will all fall apart. But once given opportunity for it, people tend to be pretty tenacious about freedom. And if they pull this off, the world will be a better place though no doubt McTag and others will continue to beat the drum of doom and gloom and pessimism and condemnation.

0 Replies

You continue to reassure yourselves of your country's "good intentions". That is the lie which is being peddled, and that is the lie which got the vote through the US congress and the British parliament.
But it was a deliberate lie, and not good intentions at all. No matter how unspeakable Saddam was. That was not the reason for going.

The US, and to some extent this country too in recent times, has a self-image of legality and rectitude. That is why this crime was so great- not because we killed more than Stalin, but because we did it behind a lie. The administration is duping the people, seeking to influence world opinion, and hoping to get away with it. I am glad to say Tony Blair is is a measure of trouble here over this, but not yet nearly enough.

0 Replies

The thing you seem to be missing McTag is the consequences of the alternatives. When you put more importance on perceived motive than you do on the actual results and/or consequences, you can miss the relevance. They why doesn't matter so much once it is done. All that matters are the results.

If Publishers Clearing House presents you with a million dollars, does it matter that their motive for doing so is entirely self serving?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Quite willing to go down that road .

No I would not equate the attacks of 9/11 with any of the above listed events. It was an act of terrorism and destruction, large on the scale of such things, but relatively quite small compared to any of the wars we have been discussing.

However in the real world the 9/11 attack was but one of a series of like attacks that themselves promised more to come and which were indeed proclaimed as the opening events in a new wave of such things by the perpetrators themselves. All this arose from the unhappy state of political development in a Moslem world that was paralyzed in its political development, having only authoritarian and theocratic models for governance, and increasingly in the grip of a sense of injustice, as a result of its previous exploitation by Britain and France, and its persistent inability to compete in the modern world. This was and still is a particularly dangerous situation for the world. We are attempting to break that paralysis in a particularly central place in the former Ottoman Empire, and the effort, though incomplete and still at risk, shows promise of of good effects both in Iraq and in neighboring Moslem states.

re terrorism: Before the modern nation of Israel founded, a devastating terrorist attack took place when Jerusalem's King David Hotel, at that time a British administrative and military headquarters, was bombed. 91 innocent people were killed. The man who was responsible for this attack later became the 6th Prime Minister of Israel.

One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. If you're not willing to equate terrorist attacks and 'formal wars' (the last war the US declared on another nation was WWII, btw) I'm willing to follow. But in my opinion a clear distinction is sometimes impossible. (I wonder if you would agree with that...?)

Furthermore, you are repeatedly claiming that the situation in the ME of today is a direct consequence of France's and Britain's colonial ambitions. People might remind you, though, the e.g. the USSR and the US had quite their share in mingling in ME affairs. And quite recently, for that matter (we're talking pre-Iraq-I, though).
How could it be that France or Britain might be more responsible than the US and the USSR of the situation we're facing today?

And, as you seem to contemplate the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, which, btw., sided with the Nazis (reminds me of 'Saddam taking the side of the terrorists'): Would you prefer a strong Ottoman Empire in place in the ME instead?

One more thing: you're saying that the ME states are "having only authoritarian and theocratic models for governance". Just as an example: would that be true for the US ally Turkey as well? A state which strictly propagates a division state - religion?

0 Replies

I was with ya up until you just had to throw in that last bit about beating the doom and gloom...what would you have people do, just keep saying that everything is going to turn out right but ignore what is happening along the way in the meantime? If there is huge explosion and there is infighting among the factions that are going to make up the government, are we to just keep ignoring it and just keep repeating, "it will turn out all right in the end, or otherwise be thought of as a doomer and gloomer? Why not say the good, the bad, and ugly in order to get whole truth instead of a rosey or gloomy truth? It is not our fault that the bad news is more than the good news.

Furthermore it is not even true that us doomers have not given credit when it was due, I could not gush enough when I realized how wrong I was about how many in Iraq really did want to vote. I also thought it a good thing that while we was there we at least got saddam hussien.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Publishers Clearing House presents you with a million dollars, does it matter that their motive for doing so is entirely self serving?

_________________
--Foxfyre

This one takes everything in terms of spinning. It matter a heck of a whole lot if people set about to decieve.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

"Good intentions often have very bad unintended consequences as we discovered in the case of the sanctions. But then other intentions often result in unexpected good consequences as is the case with the Iraq war."

Is this an admission that the original intentions of the American administration towards Iraq were malign?

" And if they pull this off, the world will be a better place though no doubt McTag and others will continue to beat the drum of doom and gloom and pessimism and condemnation."

I for one supported the war because I thought there was an opportunity to build a better Iraq in a better world. Its now clear the priorities lay elsewhere.

What is truly frightening about Iraq is not that oil was in the mix of reasons pushing for the invasion option, but that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was made necessary by the world oil situation.

This Early Day Motion was put to MPs in December, 2003. It attracted 55 signatories.

"OIL DEPLETION, ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND THE LOW CARBON ECONOMY

That this House notes the growing consensus amongst the world's leading petroleum geologists and geophysicists that the peak of global oil production will occur at some point within the next 10 years; recognises that global oil reserves, which were created over several billion years, will have been largely consumed, primarily by a small number of western industrial democracies, within a little over 100 years; further notes that all future discoveries of oilfields are likely to be in the regions where extraction costs are extremely high; believes that the current military occupation of the world's second largest oil reserves is largely related to the impending energy crisis in the United States; and therefore calls on the Government to prepare a major public awareness campaign on the future economic and lifestyle consequences of oil depletion, establish a set of national targets for energy self-sufficiency to the year 2050, and increase the budget allocation to scientific research, energy conservation and other policy measures designed to manage the transition to a low carbon economy as speedily and painlessly as possible."

Notes
1. An EDM is a method for sounding out opinion among MPs. It was not put before parliament for debate.
2. The "military occupation of the worlds second largest oil reserves" refers to Iraq.

0 Replies

And again you entirely miss the point Revel. (As did Steve) Try again with the idea of unintended good consequences being the focus.

And look at it from the point of view that the "why" or motive is far less important than the results.

0 Replies

Quote:

WTF! Where has the Iraqi reconstruction money gone?

Wall Street: Of the $18.4 billion that Congess appropriated 16 months ago for postwar reconstruction in Iraq, only $3.6 billion has been spent to date. There has been much head-scratching over this uncharacteristic failure of the Pentagon to spend money promptly.

A recently unearthed portion of a Defense Department memo sheds some light on the issue, suggesting that more than $14 billion earmarked for reconstruction was actually invested on Wall Street. The memo's author and date are unknown. This portion of the apparently classified document -- marked "page 3" -- was mistakenly sent to Mid-America Seed Savers, a nonprofit organization in Lawrence, Kansas whose members had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Army's alleged distribution of genetically engineered wheat seed to farmers in Iraq. The memo fragment is reproduced here in full:

[page heading] Reconstruction fund enhancement - p. 3

[...] that among these, the scenario with greatest potential was investment in a medium-risk portfolio of U.S.-based securities. To accomplish this without incurring excessive and unwarranted scrutiny, the Secretary issued a classified order creating the Office of Special Brokerage Services (OSBS), to which management of the reconstruction funds was assigned. The OSBS, quietly through third parties, purchased approximately $5 billion in stock in February, 2004. Another $9.2 billion was invested the following month. As of December 31, 2004, the fund had shown a net growth of approximately -1.7%.

Thanks to alert reader Bob for this story

Could it be that money was part of the reason for going to war?
Naah, we're only talkingbillions ...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And again you entirely miss the point Revel. (As did Steve) Try again with the idea of unintended good consequences being the focus.

And look at it from the point of view that the "why" or motive is far less important than the results.

In no court of law does the end justify the means.

Certainly, victors usually get to write the history books, and it's tempting for some to look for a positive gloss. But even it we had a perfect stable, democratic, peaceful situation in Iraq now, which we clearly do not, and will not have in the forseeable future, it was still an aggressive invasion based on a lie.

0 Replies

No, it was an aggressive invasion based on an error in intelligence. Not a lie. Courts of law do make allowances for honest mistakes. And again the 'why' does not negate the good that has come from it no matter what the 'why' was.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think we should acknowledge again that the above has been an incidental good consequence of the invasion of Iraq and was not precisely the reason for the Iraq war.

I will agree with that. I like the fact that people can vote. I like the fact that Saddam has been removed. On the other hand, the functioning, solid democracy that was installed in Germany as a consequence of WWII was good, too. If you understand what I'm hinting at.

Foxfyre wrote:

Right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq was to remove a perceived threat in the face of twelve years of thwarted U.N. resolution.s.

Just one sentence, and so much content... A "perceived threat" is never, ever, a justification for going to war. An "imminent threat" could, under certain circumstances, be a reason. But the US government obviously knew even in 2003 that Iraq posed no imminent threat. US government officials said so before 9/11, and they're saying so now.

Maybe it was sold as an imminent threat to you (I remember an interview I saw on tv in 2003, where reporters asked people on the street whether they though Iraq was a threat to the US or not. One woman, in NY, said she was convinced Saddam had WMD as well as missiles, and she was convinced that he could launch a strike at the US east coast at any time, and that he had to be removed). However, most people around the world decided to believe in what US officials had said about Iraq just months before, and what most other intelligence seemed to state quite obviously: That Iraq was no threat at all.

re UN resolutions: I find this argument valid, if it was not ridiculed by the very same US leadership. "He thwarted UN sanctions" on the one hand, "We don't believe the UN has any business in telling us what to do. They are not the world government." on the other hand.
You either believe in the UN, or you don't.

Foxfyre wrote:

And if they pull this off, the world will be a better place though no doubt McTag and others will continue to beat the drum of doom and gloom and pessimism and condemnation.

"doom and gloom and pessimism and condemnation" - whereupon you totally resort to the point of "All's well that ends well". We had that discussion re a-bomb and Japan recently, Fox. It's an ends vs. means discussion. I'm still waiting for your answer.

0 Replies

Oh I see, so the foxfyre guide to foreign policy is go around the world with no particular aim in mind, invading a country here, destroying a few suspected terrorists there and generally causing havoc on the basis that some unintended good is bound to come out of it?

Its your inability or rather unwillingness to see the true motives behind the Iraq invasion which leads you to such preposterous logic.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No, it was an aggressive invasion based on an error in intelligence. Not a lie. Courts of law do make allowances for honest mistakes. And again the 'why' does not negate the good that has come from it no matter what the 'why' was.

You're missing out a few steps. It has been shown here that the intention to invade Iraq pre-dated the 9-11 attacks and then that attack was used to sway public opinion against Iraq, sorry, against "Saddam".

Remember the "trifecta" and the smirk? Some fell for it, some even, God help us, are still defending it.

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

Just one sentence, and so much content... A "perceived threat" is never, ever, a justification for going to war. An "imminent threat" could, under certain circumstances, be a reason.

By your reasoning, the U.S. should not have declared war on Germany in WWII as there was no 'imminent threat' but only a 'perceived threat'. We can debate ad nauseum the justifications for going to war in Iraq. My conscience was clear as soon as the pictures of all those mass graves and malnourished children started showing up and the testimony of brave Iraqi citizens willing to risk death in order to cast a vote was undisputable. At that time the motives for the invasion of Iraq were no longer important to me. The results of the invasion were.

And if the alternative would cost a million additional lives, it is hard to fault Truman's decision to drop the A bomb. Of course if Japan had had the A bomb, I doubt we would hae dropped it. Now that there is nuclear proliferation, the likelihood of it being implemented in war is more remote except for the rogue nations in which there is little or no value placed on human life. I'm not sure if htis answers your question. If not, please ask again and I'll try again.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know