Godless Dave

Where did anyone on this thread describe Iraq as peace-loving? We just stated, accurately, that unlike Japan in 1941 Iraq has never attacked the United States.

And of course I don't have to remind you that one of Iraq's attacks against a sovereign nation was instigated and funded by the United States.

Yes it did, despite a complete and utter lack of evidence that he had the capability or inclination to do so. The Bush administration's misinformation campaign has been very effective, including on you, apparently.

Pomp

fatherphil,

funny cause the peace loving country of iraq...

Way to lead off with a strawman. Who said that the Iraqi government was "peace loving?" There is a difference between "not a military threat" and "peace loving." A nation can be either, both, or neither. Hussein's Iraq was certainly not "peace loving," but they were certainly "not a military threat," at least after having been soundly defeated in the first Gulf War, pinned down under no-fly zones, placed under the microscope of inspections, and economically crippled by sanctions.

...had in fact launched 2 attacks against sovereign under saddam's leadership.

It's funny how we weren't compelled to take out this monstrous threat to world safety after he attacked the soveriegn state of Iran...

...the fear of saddam financing a 9/11 type of attack with added punch from his weapons arsenal (conventional or unconventional) seemed real enough to some.

Unsubstantiated fears are compelling reasons to preemptively attack soveriegn nations now? I know an awful lot of people who fear the United States. I look forward to your apologetics for the perpetrators the next time someone blows up one of our embassies, ships, military bases, or office buildings.

James Still

We helped Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, providing them with the kind of battlefield intelligence necessary for chemical warfare.

As for the baloney about 911 and Saddam being linked, that was an unproven assertion by the Bush Administration that does not hold up under scrutiny. And if there were ever a moment when Saddam should have used his chemical weapons it was during the U.S. invasion into his country. But he didn't. If he didn't use them to save his own ass why should we suppose that he would have risked his regime by providing them to others? The truth is the containment policy worked. You can approve or disapprove of the U.S. decision to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that it was necessary. There was no imminent threat from the Iraqi regime. This war flagrantly violates the Christian tradition of a "just war" -- but hey, when you've got a President who believes himself to be operating from Providence who cares about principles or morals?

NialScorva

I *really* hate even looking like I'm defending Bush & co, but given that we are responsible for reconstruction of Iraq, isn't it in the best interest to get their economy up and running in some form? Given that they're economy is largely based around oil, it should be the number one priority in order to get the country back on it's feet. It seems to me that under either the most pessimistic or optimisitic views of our intentions in Iraq, getting the wells running again is the number one priority.

Let's not let the "war for oil" jingoism distract from politically kicking Bush in the nads for making a mess of things and following through with fixing Iraq.

Gurdur

Using "the interests of the people of Iraq" as a cover for USA neo-con interests ?
Tell us why, Scorva, the USA admin rejected the French suggestion to suspend the sanctions immediately following re-entry into Iraq of UN weapons inspectors working in collaberation with the US arms inspections teams.

And who says you are responsible ?
Why the USA refusal to hand over to the UN ?
Out of interest, just how naive do you take people for ?
Your argument is simply a re-run of the tired cynical ploy of "liberating" Iraq for the good of its people ---- a ploy now becoming ever more transparent.
Same with the reconstruction ---- for the good of Iraqis or for the good of a subsidary of Halliburton ?

NialScorva

That's nice. Shame it has nothing to do with my position.

Cause the French are no better than us and merely wanted to make a profit? Are you niave enough to think that *anyone* wants to help Iraq? The French wanted to use and abuse the people of Iraq just as much as Bush does. There's no moral superiority here, it's just a question of which vulture gets the corpse.

Well, the talk of the thread has been the Geneva stipulation that an occupying country is responsible, so...

Dunno, how naive do you take people for?


Ok, here's my position in a nutshell:

I'm a liberal. I hate Bush's policies. I don't think he should be in office and will donate and campaign for the first alternative that looks capable of beating him, solely to keep him from being reelected.

I'm also a liberal who thinks that the first world countries should take *far* more responsibility for the messes made by introducing too much, too fast into third world countries. I *want* to see joint military intervention in most of central africa, the middle east, and south-east asia. I want to see broad scale overthrowing of corrupt governments and replacement with a more hospitible system. I also know that this is completely impractical and should not be attempted in the current world political environment.

I did *not* want to see US action in Iraq without the full backing of the UN. Unfortunately the administration didn't ask my opinion on the matter. My position is based solely on:

a) Bush fucked up... hard
b) What can we do to salvage the mess he's made to produce *some* benefit.
c) Since we've already done all the damage we're going to do, let's not let go of the situation so it falls back into a dictatorship we'll just have to deal with in another 30 years.

You think the UN is any less in the pockets of big business than the US is? Turning control of Iraq over to them merely changes the hands of who gets rich off the contracts. No one in the UN is looking out for the people of Iraq, just what they can get out of the situation.

Yeah, there are people who care and do want to make a difference, but they don't have the power. You don't change the system in revolution, you change it in evolution. Sit down, think it through, and figure out what would help the people of Iraq *now* while appeasing the vultures we've put in power in *every* nation.

James Still

First, let me say that I did not mean to imply that fatherphil was suggesting a link between 911 and Iraq. He clearly does not. My reply was directed toward those neo-cons in the Administration (to include the President) who did make that false connection. I should have made that clearer. However, I stand by my comments with respect to this hypothetical 911-type of attack that the propagandists used with great effect to scare the American people into supporting a war.

Gurdur writes:
I know that Nialscorva can speak very well for himself but I would like to say that there is a reason why the U.S. rejects the French initiative. Iraq owes France and Russia a lot of money. The only way they can ever hope to recoup some of that debt is by preventing the U.S. from controlling future oil revenue. If it goes to a trust fund for the Iraqi people, then it ain't going to France and Russia.

I think it's wrong to lash out at Nial on this point. It's admirable to want to help the Iraqi people in the post-war situation even though the war itself was wrong. My faith in humanity is restored by folks like Nial. However, I have some sympathy for your point of view. At the risk of seeming callous and cold-hearted I think that Democrats should refrain from helping to smooth the way for a speedy post-war reconstruction.

I know that sounds cruel and I apologize in advance for saying it. But we're dealing with folks like Karl Rove and Andrew Card, both of whom have exploited 911, the so-called war on terror, and the war in Iraq to further the interests of the far right in general and the GOP in particular. Democrats are too soft, too ideological, and too predisposed toward seeing both sides of the argument. They want to reach out and work with the other side. The other side thinks this is a war. The other side takes no prisoners. They have shown that they will do anything in order to get power and hold onto it. The GOP plotted against Clinton from his first day in office. The Dems say, "He wasn't elected, but let's let bygones be bygones." When things go wrong in Iraq (and you know that they will) it will very likely cost Bush the election. But he made his bed and now it's time for him to lie in it. Democrats should not tuck him in or go fetch a glass of milk for him.

Disclaimer: My comments are strictly my own and do not in any way, shape, or form represent the views of the Internet Infidels.

Cap'n Jack

Nicely put NialScorva, I couldn't have put it better myself (no really I couldn't, I'm not too good at conveying my thoughts in written form).

Pomp

NialScorva,

...isn't it in the best interest to get their economy up and running in some form? Given that they're economy is largely based around oil, it should be the number one priority in order to get the country back on it's feet. It seems to me that under either the most pessimistic or optimisitic views of our intentions in Iraq, getting the wells running again is the number one priority.

While I agree that getting the oil flowing again is an important step in getting the Iraqi economy on its feet, I'm not sure that it's the first priority. That's sort of beside the point I was trying to make, though, which was specifically addressed to the oil-for-food concept and examined the practical and ethical reasons against charging the Iraqis for US assistance in rebuilding their country after we participated in its destruction.

NialScorva

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The Iraqi people do not and have not ever owned the oil. It has always been owned by a relative few, most of whom are probably not even alive now. The only people who would be deprived of something they had are those that have profitted off the people of Iraq already. What is the alternative? Complete hands off? Let the chips fall where they may and then the government of Iraq pay Halliburton (or it's French equivalent) for the same services in 5 years?

There's absolutely no use in complaining about the situation sucking. The situation sucks all around. How should the US make it suck less?