The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
McTag wrote:
Iraq could not subjugate my Aunt Fanny.

Whoever said "Truth is the first casualty of war" certainly knew what they were saying.

Easy to say, but easily shown false. I said millions killed or subjugated. An Iraq with nukes or effective bioweapons could kill millions and use the mere knowledge of what it possessed to force it's neighbors to give ground in disputes. Hence, because of the gravity of the consequences if Iraq did still have WMD and development programs, we went in to find out for certain. If you'd like to tell me that an Iraq with serious WMD couldn't kill on a massive scale or dominate its neighbors, start talking.

Pakistan has fissile material, and a lot of people who wish us harm. And it has sold nuclear technology to unstable areas.

Iran is getting there too, helped by Mr Putin.

Both of the above (Pak, Rus) are our allies.

The fact that Russia seems to be helping Iran with it's nuclear ambitions and turning a blind eye to Iran's apparent real goal is certainly very troubling. I'm not sure what your point is, though. Are you suggesting that the Bush administration is hypocritical for invading Iraq but not Russia? Clearly in the case of Russia our best course of action is to engage them diplomatically and try to persuade them of the dangers of an Iran with nuclear weapons. As for Pakistan, yes, they pose a danger and the danger must be dealt with, but since General Mushasraf seems to be cooperating with us on a number of fronts, and since he is not another Saddam Hussein, once again, our best bet would seem to be engagement and persuasion rather than invasion. I don't think our failure to invade Russia and Pakistan can be used to show that Bush is a hypocrite, if that was your point.

McTag wrote:

Meanwhile, we attack Iraq, which could not do us harm, and did not do us harm...

No, wrong. Had Iraq still been perfecting its WMD, it could have done tremendous harm, and finding that out was the purpose of the invasion.

McTag wrote:

...and create a whole new breeding ground of people who wish us harm.

If you think this is sensible, start talking on another thread.

We invaded Iraq because we had to resolve the longstanding WMD issue. A single WMD of certain sorts can kill a million people. This is gravely serious. Yes, when you attack someone, you may enrage his sympathizers. This can hardly be taken as a reason to allow your enemies to wreak lethal mischief without responding.

But the statement of yours that I responded to was your response to my statement that an Iraq with WMD could kill and/or subjugate a lot of people. You responded that Iraq couldn't subjugate anyone. You are incorrect. Had Hussein still been perfecting his WMD, he could eventually have subjugated a lot of people.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,971 • Replies: 157

No top replies

Hi Brandon. Back later.

You write well but you are kind of....mad. I'll try to fix that for you.

0 Replies

Quote:

The fact that Russia seems to be helping Iran with it's nuclear ambitions and turning a blind eye to Iran's apparent real goal is certainly very troubling.

What's troubling is your ability to turn a blind eye to America's real goal...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The title of this thread is a statement.

In your opinion, Brandon it was justified. Many people will agree with you.

Whether it was morally justified or legally justified is another question. The churchmen and the lawmen seem to say it was not.

But what do they know? Morality is subjective and international law is in reality what the man with the biggest gun says is lawful.

I wish people on the political right would be a bit more honest. There is no need to "justify" the invasion of Iraq any more than Caesar "justified" invading these islands. He did so because he wanted to and no one could stop him. Same with Iraq although the US not only wanted to invade Iraq, they needed to as well. And there was no USSR around to stop 'em.

There were bumper stickers in the US before the war saying "KICK HIS ASS AND GET THE GAS". Brutal, but refreshingly honest.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The title of this thread is a statement.

In your opinion, Brandon it was justified. Many people will agree with you.

Whether it was morally justified or legally justified is another question. The churchmen and the lawmen seem to say it was not.

But what do they know? Morality is subjective and international law is in reality what the man with the biggest gun says is lawful.

I wish people on the political right would be a bit more honest. There is no need to "justify" the invasion of Iraq any more than Caesar "justified" invading these islands. He did so because he wanted to and no one could stop him. Same with Iraq although the US not only wanted to invade Iraq, they needed to as well. And there was no USSR around to stop 'em.

There were bumper stickers in the US before the war saying "KICK HIS ASS AND GET THE GAS". Brutal, but refreshingly honest.

As Bush stated many times, an invasion of Iraq was necessary to resolve the WMD issue. Even the possibility of a Hussein with nukes or serious bioweapons was something that we couldn't permit to happen. We had to be sure. The weapons are just so lethal that the matter had to be looked at with the utmost concern. Whether someone considers that justification was necessary or not, the invasion was justfied. The need to resolve the WMD issue provided more than sufficient reason to invade.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Hi Brandon. Back later.

You write well but you are kind of....mad. I'll try to fix that for you.

Ha ha. I'll look forward to it.

0 Replies

Indeed the invasion of Iraq was justified, we did it because we could.

0 Replies

A group of young men are behaving badly in the street. You believe one of them has a gun in his pocket. You shoot a couple of them, and the others stop behaving badly.

You have achieved a result. You have restored calm, and you have established that they did not have a gun after all.

Surely the judge will see the sense, indeed the rectitude, of your actions and let you walk free. Your desire for information, and your wish to impose your will on that street, are more important than a couple of dead punks after all.

0 Replies

You have to protect your family AT ALL COSTS, remember.

NOTHING is as important as your safety. NOTHING.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

A group of young men are behaving badly in the street. You believe one of them has a gun in his pocket. You shoot a couple of them, and the others stop behaving badly.

You have achieved a result. You have restored calm, and you have established that they did not have a gun after all.

Surely the judge will see the sense, indeed the rectitude, of your actions and let you walk free. Your desire for information, and your wish to impose your will on that street, are more important than a couple of dead punks after all.

This is not an accurate analogy.

1. We did not invade Iraq to persuade Hussein to stop behaving badly as in your analogy. We went in to disarm him.
Hussein had created and was trying to perfect weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people or even more, unlike a gun which can kill one person with each bullet.

2. He had agreed to abide by the terms of his surrender in Gulf War 1 to eliminate them, but then been very dishonest and evasive in complying.
We had tried to get him to abide by his surrender conditions for a dozen years and the results were uncertain. We went in to enforce his surrender agreement.

3. Although, of course, people always die in war, we did not go into Iraq with the goal of killing as in your analogy.
We went in to verify that these weapons he had made, that could so easily be used to kill our citizens by the million, and the programs to perfect them, had been destroyed.

Furthermore, on the streets of your example, there is usually no need for an individual to enforce the laws, because there is a higher authority that will intervene to prevent you from being too badly abused. In your example, the appropriate action would be to call the police. In international relations, there is no such higher authority that will keep evil people in their place. At least not an effective one.

0 Replies

Quote:

We did not invade Iraq to persuade Hussein to stop behaving badly as in your analogy. We went in to disarm him.

Yep, the sole purpose of invading Iraq was because everybody in the Bush administration knew EXACTLY where those WMDs were. There was no doubt. They knew the exact numbers of Saddam's bioweapons, where they were located, etc. Hardly a moment passed with anyone mentioning the fact that Saddam was behaving badly and we had to go in.

But NOW, the sole reason the Bushies have been using for our occupation of Iraq is that Saddam was, um, behaving badly. Jeff Gannon, the fake reporter/gay prostitute asked questions regarding Saddam's torture chambers to McClellan, and indicated why we don't see more of those rather than the Abu Gharaib pictures. Of course, that was all just basic propoganda cover for the Bush re-election campaign.

Quote:

He had agreed to abide by the terms of his surrender in Gulf War 1 to eliminate them, but then been very dishonest and evasive in complying.

Apparently, as we've found out, that appears to not be the case.

I'm curious: How "easily" could have Saddam killed our citizens by the millions, since it seems it wouldn't have been easy at all whatsoever...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
We did not invade Iraq to persuade Hussein to stop behaving badly as in your analogy. We went in to disarm him.

Yep, the sole purpose of invading Iraq was because everybody in the Bush administration knew EXACTLY where those WMDs were. There was no doubt. They knew the exact numbers of Saddam's bioweapons, where they were located, etc. Hardly a moment passed with anyone mentioning the fact that Saddam was behaving badly and we had to go in.

But NOW, the sole reason the Bushies have been using for our occupation of Iraq is that Saddam was, um, behaving badly. Jeff Gannon, the fake reporter/gay prostitute asked questions regarding Saddam's torture chambers to McClellan, and indicated why we don't see more of those rather than the Abu Gharaib pictures. Of course, that was all just basic propoganda cover for the Bush re-election campaign.

At the time of the invasion, and for some time before the invasion, the reason that I wanted it to occur was to eliminate the possibility that Hussein was merely hiding his WMD and programs. This is also the reason that was used by the administration to justify the invasion. We needed to insure that he had disarmed. Now that no WMD have been found, it is natural to talk about the other benefits of the invasion, e.g. elections, but the proper reason for the invasion was WMD.

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
He had agreed to abide by the terms of his surrender in Gulf War 1 to eliminate them, but then been very dishonest and evasive in complying.

Apparently, as we've found out, that appears to not be the case.

You are wrong. There are numerous cases of Iraq being caught in a lie about WMD, inspectors refused entry to a site they wanted to inspect until it could be sanitized, and instances of Iraqi guards forcibly preventing UN aircraft from flying over certain sites. My statement is that Iraq had been very dishonest and evasive during inspections, and this is quite true.

Dookiestix wrote:

I'm curious: How "easily" could have Saddam killed our citizens by the millions, since it seems it wouldn't have been easy at all whatsoever...

Okay, tell me why this doesn't work. He sends agents into the United States and then ships the components of bioweapons in through our badly inspected ports. The agents receive and assemble the bioweapons, and then detonate them around the country.

0 Replies

The invasion of Iraq was not justified. Iraq had not threatened us, they had no WMDs, and they weren't a threat, except in the mind of paranoids like Brandon here.

Years from now, when we have the prism of history to look through, we will see it as the bulshit act of aggression that it was.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

The invasion of Iraq was not justified. Iraq had not threatened us, they had no WMDs, and they weren't a threat, except in the mind of paranoids like Brandon here.

Years from now, when we have the prism of history to look through, we will see it as the bulshit act of aggression that it was.

We only know for sure that the WMD Hussein had created are not in Iraq because we invaded. As for them having not threatened us, a man like Hussein in possession of nukes and bioweapons would be a dire threat to the whole world. We wanted to stop him before he got to that point, precisely as we have failed to do with North Korea. Someday, when some awful dictator uses a nuke in a densley populated city, presumably you'll comprehend the level of importance of this.

0 Replies

As usual, you make no sense. In the paranoid, grim little world you live in, the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq only means that he moved them somewhere. It's not even possible that he didn't have any, right? And the fact that he didn't threaten us means nothing, because you have such a hard-on about the threat that he might have become.

It wasn't justified, you're wrong, and that's that.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

As usual, you make no sense. In the paranoid, grim little world you live in, the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq only means that he moved them somewhere.

That's not even remotely what I said. I said that we know there are no WMD only because we invaded.

kickycan wrote:

It's not even possible that he didn't have any, right?

Yes, it is, although it is rather odd that a man who wanted sanctions lifted so badly complied with the treaty but failed to produce evidence of it, e.g. inviting UN experts in to witness the destruction, videotaping it, and recording the location of the remnants for future inspection.

kickycan wrote:

And the fact that he didn't threaten us means nothing, because you have such a hard-on about the threat that he might have become.

Yes, we now live in an age in which weapons exist such that one use of one can obliterate a large city.

kickycan wrote:

It wasn't justified, you're wrong, and that's that.

On the contrary.

0 Replies

Quote:

At the time of the invasion, and for some time before the invasion, the reason that I wanted it to occur was to eliminate the possibility that Hussein was merely hiding his WMD and programs.

Um, how could Saddam have been hiding his WMDs when Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest told us that they knew EXACTLY where they were. How is that hiding?

And of course it would be natural to talk about ANY benefits of the invasion after the fact; it is to be expected from a corrupt administration desperate to spin this fiasco in their favor.

And are you listening to what you are saying?

Quote:

He had agreed to abide by the terms of his surrender in Gulf War 1 to eliminate them, but then been very dishonest and evasive in complying.

But, as we have already found out, he actually DID eliminate them. How am I wrong in that reality? Or are you arguing from a different reality? Perhaps you might be "divorced" from reality?

As the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another county is, um, the U.S., what kind of precedence would you expect that to set on the nations of the world, be they third world, Middle Eastern, or otherwise? You don't think that U.S. involvement in the Middle East would encourage these nations to try and develop nuclear weapons/programs on their own, as they most likely see an immediate threat to their own sovereignty by an occupational power like the U.S.?

But wait: according to the neocons like Brandon, all those weapons are now in Syria, right? So why won't Syria use them? Saddam hadn't used his during the sanctions, because it would appear as though he actually DID destroy his weapons during this period.

The only justification in invading Iraq would seem to be the securing of the second largest oil reserve in the world and to establish permanent military bases in the region. We now own Iraq, lock, stock and barrel, and if the Iraqis asked us to leave, do you honestly believe that we'll comply?

Is it even remotely possible to attempt to think for yourself?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, we now live in an age in which weapons exist such that one use of one can obliterate a large city.

Why don't you just save yourself some time and energy, and post this sentence over and over? It is where your whole argument begins and ends, after all. Whatever the debate is, if it has to do with war and killing people needlessly, this hypothetical is your justification. And by the way, you're still wrong.

0 Replies

The war was justified.

Iraq violated security council resolutions.

Iraq had WMD.

I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel..... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

The war was justified.

Iraq violated security council resolutions.

Iraq had WMD.

I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel.....

Why? Is Israel ruled by an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?

0 Replies

The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know