Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

US launching huge air attacks in Iraq

1356711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Lol Aladdin.

    Tell the Exiles that.
    Or you could tell the families of the hundreds of thousands dead and to die in the next 10 years that it was worth it after all.

    The end doesn't necessarily justify the means. Just because one day in the long distant future Iraq might eventually be pacified and become a liveable country does not mean the war was justified- at all whatsoever.

    At this rate, chances are the Iraqis would have sooner achieved democracy by letting Saddam be and let history take its course than by trying to impose democracy by force without having even an elementary contingency plan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    funny that you actually belive that aladdin.

    You have a point abou the contingency plan but thats it.

    Let Saddam be?? Ha ha. yeah it would be sorted for the sunni's and the people in his circle but the sheias and kurds would be fucked.

    so easy to sit back and blame everyone else. Its an easy, syraight forward postion to take.

    Doesn't mean its right though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The way the US/UK are playing things, they're just going to end up with another Saddam running things in a few years.

    In fact, if a young Saddam Hussein were to come along today to take charge of Iraq, a strongman who was willing to work with the Americans, somebody opposed to Iran, somebody who would persecute militant Islamic fundamentalists, somebody who could keep the country from falling apart and destabilising the whole region, and somebody who could keep the oil flowing, the American commanders would think all their dreams had come true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair point.

    though I wonder if they would be that stupid again. They seem dedicated to the demcoracy idea and putting in a copy of their version of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    funny that you actually belive that aladdin.

    You have a point abou the contingency plan but thats it.

    Let Saddam be?? Ha ha. yeah it would be sorted for the sunni's and the people in his circle but the sheias and kurds would be fucked.

    so easy to sit back and blame everyone else. Its an easy, syraight forward postion to take.

    Doesn't mean its right though.
    The situation in Iraq was the same it had been for many years. The shiias and the Kurds had been fucked up a long time ago- in fact right during the time when good old Saddam was our friend and ally, and nobody gave much of shit about the poor Kurds then.

    Other than the criminally strict West-imposed sanctions, life in Iraq during the 90s and early 00s wasn't particularly worse than any other brutal dictatorship around the world. Not that I'm justifying the police state, kidnappings, torture and murder but at least there was no terrorism whatsoever and no Islamic extremism. I can think of several places where things are markedly worse than Iraq, from Congo to Zimbabwe.

    There was no justification whatsoever for doing what Britain and the US did. None whatsoever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You would find Mearsheimer interesting Aladdin, if you havent already read him. He made the same arguement, from the Realist school perspective of international relations. His arguements were largely ignored in the runup to the war, because Bush and the NeoCons work from a Liberal perspective (in an international political sense) and they really believed the shit they spewed about democracy and flowers. Mearsheimer said they were talking nonsense and nationalism will lead them to see the US as occupiers the longer they were there. Thats debatable, but in strict security terms, he was correct about the risk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there is ALOt of justification for intervention and removing tyrants from power by force. I do not think invading Iraq an toppling he Government, arresting Saddam, killing his son's, etc was wrong. I do think the way it was done and they way the "peace" has been fought has been laughably inadequate on almost all fronts.

    Firstly if histroy had been allowed to take it's course, one of Saddams two son's would have taken power and been far more brutal and evil then he ever was, they were both psychotics after all and not at all politcal, not to their fathers extent anyway.

    Saying that, i think America leading role has been terrible. They have made many mistakes, more then any occupying force should make in this situation. But i do not think the West shoul dhave pulled out by now, anyone who does is naive on all counts of military action.

    We the West, America and Britain should be building the peace the better, but they should have aggressively tried to maintain the sytems and governmental departments during the invasion, protec schools and hospitals etc. Then the situation would not be so dire now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It would have been even less dire if they hadn't actually supported Saddam Hussein and armed him to the teeth during the 80s.

    Or, if they really thought they are the self-elected world policemen, had targetted all dictators everywhere, not just those who happen to sit on billions of barrels of oil reserves.

    As if the US and British governments really gave a fuck about brutal dictators, torture and human rights anyway... South America, Israel, Africa, China anyone? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There was no justification whatsoever for doing what Britain and the US did. None whatsoever.

    Unless you oppose Totalitarianism and fascism.

    But sadly so very many people on the left have slided into pacifism and inaction in the face of very real threats.

    George Orwell would turn in his grave.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "In the face of very real threats" - do you mean threats like weapons of mass destruction that can reach us in 45 minutes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless you oppose Totalitarianism and fascism.
    Seeing as the US and Britain supported Hussein for nearly two decades, I don't think totalitarianism and fascism were high on the list of their concerns. Do you?

    And as for whether the removal of a totalitarian/fascist dictator actually justified such action (even though it was not the reason we attacked Iraq) seeing as the whole world knew what the consequences would be, no, it still doesn't justify going to war in this particular case.
    But sadly so very many people on the left have slided into pacifism and inaction in the face of very real threats.
    Like Voodoo has asked, what threats would these be?

    Do you actually think the world and our own countries have become safer after we went into Iraq?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I fully support the American action, more Bombing is definatly the way forward, especially if there dropped from airplanes and helicopters at a great height...
    That's right. After all, dead Ieaqis can't start any civil war, can they? :rolleyes:
    They couldnt be more different than the saintly christian administration of George Bush
    I nearly pissed myself on reading that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And once again the old arguments are brought up, the same flawed arguments by the anti-war side.

    The West DID support Saddam. Back before he was luanching chemical weapons on the Kurds and treatin gis own people like shit. We stopped supporting him because of his behaviour and actions. When he first took charge of Iraq, he was pro west, while Iran had just had a bloody revolution adn there dictatorial regime was making strong suggestions of war with the West. It was Iran aso that wa smoving to invade Kuwait. Saddam did a deal with Kuwait to fight the war with Iran for them, as they couldn't stand up to Iran. The Western powers saw this a as a good thing and so supported him in that endevour. Then Sadam showed his true colours much later, turning on Kuwait, threatening the Arab world, truning on the West and his own people. He wasn't the ally anymore.

    People think that Saddam sat around and did nothing between the 2 gulf wars. Did you forgte the amount of times the US had to step in as he was threatrneding to invade Kuwait again? Do you forget th elinks to terrorims he had and the fact that on at least 2 occassions the Americans had to send cruise missles in to stop his plans and punish him for his deeds?

    Korea and China are self explanatory. A move on North Korea would mean destrcution of South Korea, they will never do it.

    China has nukes and is a big pwoer, it would have been stupid to have ever threatend China with force.

    Africa, well no one else cared about Africa, not just the yanks, plus the whole jungle factor. But even today its not forgtton, having being announce don a list of despot regimes by the US and hoepfully plans to sort it out.

    It has had an effect.

    Libya, a long time enemy of the West ahs packed in its resistance, admitted its WMD programme and is no working with the West.

    And that wa sone of the aims of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you show these regimes your not gonna stand for it anymore an dactually do something about it, then you can get a change. Iraq and Afghainstan are tools to help show America means busines now, an dth eplan is to have these regimes fold or change their ways without needing a war to ddo it, as they are too scared of America and war to resist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeing as the US and Britain supported Hussein for nearly two decades, I don't think totalitarianism and fascism were high on the list of their concerns. Do you?

    I think thats completlly fucking irrelevent and all it does is prove your own laughable intellectual double standards and betrayal of everything you, as a left winger, should stand for.
    And as for whether the removal of a totalitarian/fascist dictator actually justified such action (even though it was not the reason we attacked Iraq) seeing as the whole world knew what the consequences would be, no, it still doesn't justify going to war in this particular case.

    The incompetency of the occupation bears no relation to the irrefutable case for deposing a fascist. All you had to offer the Iraqi people was the brutal imperialist status quo under Saddam and his sons for the next 50 years.

    Instead of foolishly supporting Saddam by proxy, you and your stop the war coalition dickhead buddies should have been campaigning for the West to do a good job of rebuilding Iraq.

    Those on the anti-war left should be ashamed of themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    And once again the old arguments are brought up, the same flawed arguments by the anti-war side.

    The West DID support Saddam. Back before he was luanching chemical weapons on the Kurds and treatin gis own people like shit. We stopped supporting him because of his behaviour and actions.
    You are quite wrong there. Saddam was our 'friend and ally' at the height of his atrocities. We provided him with the gas and suggested he might want to use it against Iranian soldiers, which he duly did. He also used it to gas the Kurds, and we looked the other way and pretended it never happened.

    It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and thus threatened the oil market, that he suddenly became an evil torturer and murderer who gassed his own people in our good eyes. But not a moment before.

    Don't make the mistake of believing the British or US governments didn't support Saddam once he went apeshit, because it's not true. We remained his loyal friends and allies through the height of his crimes, and simply couldn't give a fuck what he did to his own people so long as he remained a useful puppet to the West.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^ Thats all irrelevent. It in no way makes removing Saddams regime immoral.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you and your stop the war coalition dickhead buddies should have been campaigning for the West to do a good job of rebuilding Iraq.

    Yeah, llike that would have made a fuck of a lot of difference!

    People who were against the war knew that Bush & Rumsfeld & pals were a load of corrupt, incompetent fools who couldn't manage a chili stand in Texas properly, let alone the occupation and reconstruction of a country.

    It's amazing that three years on their blinkered pro-war cheerleaders don't know when to admit they were wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's establish some opinions which people tend to agree on;
    - Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.
    - Iraqis are mostly glad that he's gone.
    - We were led to war on the basis of lies.
    - The occupation has been spectactularly incompetent.
    Those on the anti-war left should be ashamed of themselves.
    I'm on the anti-war Right, get yourself out of that one. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think thats completlly fucking irrelevent and all it does is prove your own laughable intellectual double standards and betrayal of everything you, as a left winger, should stand for.
    You what? :confused:


    The incompetency of the occupation bears no relation to the irrefutable case for deposing a fascist. All you had to offer the Iraqi people was the brutal imperialist status quo under Saddam and his sons for the next 50 years.

    Instead of foolishly supporting Saddam by proxy, you and your stop the war coalition dickhead buddies should have been campaigning for the West to do a good job of rebuilding Iraq.

    Those on the anti-war left should be ashamed of themselves.
    Bullshit. The anti war camp has been proven fact on every single last fucking count.

    We were right on the lies regarding WMDs.

    We were right on the lies regarding links to terrorism.

    We were right on the illegality of the war.

    We were right that removing Saddam would make things far worse, not better, for ordinary Iraqis.

    We were right that tens of thousands of innocent civilians would be killed and millions more would suffer terrible hardships.

    We were right that the war would make the whole region more dangerous instead of less.

    We were right that the entire world would be a more dangerous place.

    We were right that we ourselves would pay the price in blood.

    We were right that Saddam removal would create a vacuum of power that would invite undesirables and bring the country to the brink of civil war.

    We were right that the Coalition of the Killing would fuck up and had no chance of controlling the situation past the only thing they're good at- namely bombing places to fuck from the air.

    In fact, only fundamentalist neocon or a complete fool could possibly suggest today that the war was still worth it.

    I see that many former war supporters, including some right wing Republicans themselves, have seen the error of their ways. Time you did the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesnt matter if we are led to war on the basis of lies, if the war itself is just.

    It reflects worse on the people of Britain that Blair thought they wouldnt be convinced by the argument of deposing Saddam because he was a fascist and had to resort to the WMD argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    In fact, only fundamentalist neocon or a complete fool could possibly suggest today that the war was still worth it. I see that many former war supporters, including some right wing Republicans themselves, have seen the error of their ways. Time you did the same.
    Agreed again, Aladdin.

    The anti-war camp in the case of Iraq bridges political viewpoints. Aladdin is a liberal, fairly left-wing. I'm a conservative (with a small C) right-winger. Yet, we both stand united on the view the Iraq war was wrong, and the occupation is a shambles. Care to explain this one, Matadore?
    It doesnt matter if we are led to war on the basis of lies, if the war itself is just.
    So it's alright for George and Tony to lie to us? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It reflects worse on the people of Britain that Blair thought they wouldnt be convinced by the argument of deposing Saddam because he was a fascist and had to resort to the WMD argument.


    It reflects badly on the people of Britain that *some* of them were daft enough to fall for all of Blair's bullshit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullshit. The anti war camp has been proven fact on every single last fucking count.

    The anti war camp sided with Saddam Hussain. Their brand of logic would have meant no intervention in Yugoslavia and no standing up to Hitler and Stalin.
    I see that many former war supporters, including some right wing Republicans themselves, have seen the error of their ways. Time you did the same.

    If you had any principles at all, you would realise that a war on a fascist dictator, giving the Iraqi people at least some hope of self determination, is always justified, even if the overt reason given does turn out to have been overegged.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The anti-war camp in the case of Iraq bridges political viewpoints. Aladdin is a liberal, fairly left-wing. I'm a conservative (with a small C) right-winger. Yet, we both stand united on the view the Iraq war was wrong, and the occupation is a shambles. Care to explain this one, Matadore?

    I dont care about where you stand. Its irrelevent - anyone with a moral compass can see that a war on a fascist is a Good Thing. And for someone on the left not to oppose fascism is essentially a repudiation of all his or her principles.
    So it's alright for George and Tony to lie to us

    I dont fucking care if they lied to us, it doesnt bother me one jot. They could have said they invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam because there was a giant frog there they wanted to study - I would have still supported a war to depose a murderous thug.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey, Godwin's boy - how do you feel about brutal dictatorships like Islam Karimov's in Uzbekistan being key allies in 'the war against terror'?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How do I feel about it? How do you think I feel? Revulsion and disgust. But thats a seperate issue - sadly the West cant launch wars agaisnt all the dictators at once.

    For the moment Saddam will have to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Voodoo Ray wrote:
    Hey, Godwin's boy - how do you feel about brutal dictatorships like Islam Karimov's in Uzbekistan being key allies in 'the war against terror'?
    Mr Karimov likes to boil his political opponents to death, he likes to shoot them at sun-down. Sometimes, if he fancies giving his staff cronies a break, he'll shoot them himself. A member of staff at the Foreign Office revealed this two years ago. What did Jack "Clutching On" Straw do? Why, only sack him! :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The anti war camp sided with Saddam Hussain. Their brand of logic would have meant no intervention in Yugoslavia and no standing up to Hitler and Stalin.
    You can't tell the difference between opposing a pointless and counterproductive war and supporting a dictator, can you?

    Please tell me you've got better arguments. than that Ann Coulter-inspired childish rubbish

    If you had any principles at all, you would realise that a war on a fascist dictator, giving the Iraqi people at least some hope of self determination, is always justified, even if the overt reason given does turn out to have been overegged.
    Unless of course, the fascist in question turns up to be of use, such as Augusto Pinochet or President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

    Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't the difference between opposing a pointless and counterproductive war and supporting a dictator, can you?

    I dont see a war which liberates an entire country from under the thumb of a murderous thug and his rqually repulsive sons as 'pointless and counterproductive'. Given the choice between Saddams rule for the next 50 years and a chance, no matter how slim (because it would be opposed by Islamists who are also fascists) of a democracy, I'd always pick the latter. And I suspect most Iraqis would do the same.
    Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

    I know perfectly well that, even with American power, you cant depose everyone at once. I'll settle for one dictator at a time.

    As for you, my revulsion at your lack of compassion, hand wringing defence of fascism and arm chair arrogance in assuming the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam knows no bounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As for you, my revulsion at your lack of compassion, hand wringing defence of fascism and arm chair arrogance in assuming the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam knows no bounds.
    His lack of compassion?! Oh yeah, like you're some lovely, cuddly teddy bear who loves the Iraqis. :rolleyes: You truly are deluded. Now, let's see if we can get a straight answer out of you. I'm now against the occupation, and I'm right-wing. (though thankfully nowhere near as much as you are) Why should I support what's going on now?
Sign In or Register to comment.