Iraqi Casualties

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Prof [Note: Harris, this is for you too],

Firstly, remember, that it’s important to look at the reasons in an aggregate fashion. That will play directly to one of your questions below.

Professor X wrote:

Well, In my opinion, your first point doesn’t hold much water for me. Strategic importance in war on terror, seems to go up in flames when we create even more terrorists. Terrorism isn’t a country. It is more an ideal, and as such, it isn’t like Iraq was such a major player in its existence that taking out Iraq is going to destroy it. I understand the point you are making, but terrorism isn’t grounded to one specific area of the world. If anything, I feel that we gave many of our own enemies a new resolve as far as their utter hatred of our way of life. Do you disagree with this?

I agree that it’s a bad idea to make more terrorists. I disagree that it’s anything more than a loosely based claim that we in fact are creating more terrorists. But that actually doesn’t impact the main point.

The main point was that the administration and the CIA view is and has been that terrorists aren’t nearly as big of a threat to US interests in the absence of sponsorship by nation states. So if taking away a nation-state sponsor meant that terrorists were less likely to get their hands on advanced weapons or to have a shelter and training ground, then, in fact, even if there were more terrorists created, they would still be less dangerous to US interests than fewer terrorists who had those things.

Professor X wrote:

Your second point, “strategic importance in the Persian Gulf, which is a key area for the world economy because of its energy production” does lead me to ask, didn’t the administration claim that this was not a goal? I agree, it would make sense for this to be the strategy, but who has claimed this was the intention? I am truly asking for my own information because I was under the impression that this tactic was definitely not a reason for why we went into Iraq.

No, they didn’t say that we didn’t take energy supply into account. They said we weren’t going to war “for oil,” meaning solely for oil, which was the claim they were arguing against. As I said, Iraq has to be viewed in total – I think making certain that the middle east didn’t descend into a chaotic mess that would trigger a global economic depression was probably a consideration, though not the only, or even necessarily the most important, consideration.

Professor X wrote:

Your third point, “and, unlike the cases in both Iran (with Russia) and North Korea (with China), you didn’t have a big geopolitical player that considered that country “their turf,” which would add a whole nother set of costs and complications to the mix.” just leads me to ask if this means our actions are based on who we thought would give up easier? So democracy of Iraq was not the major reason we went to war, ease of war was?

Once again, let me say that it has to be considered in the aggregate. If one does a cost/benefit analysis of a situation, which is key to any “realism” view of foreign policy, then, to use your terminology, “ease of war” would be a factor on the cost side of the equations, and “democracy for Iraq” would be a factor on the benefit side of the equation.[/quote]

Two points:

  1. While I agree that Iraq was the “easier” war (eactually, even using the term “war” is kinda goofy. it reminds me of Bill Hicks joke, “A war is when TWO armies are fighting,”) to say that we did this to spread democracy doesn’t hold up historically. We’ve never gone to war to spread democracy. it might have been a by-product, but history shows that America prefers friendly dictatorships. (Central/South America, for example).

  2. Iraq didnt’t sponsor terorism. At least, not when compared to Suadi Arabia, Libya, Iran, et al.

42

[quote]hedo wrote:
harris447 wrote:
hedo wrote:
harris447 wrote:
On what hedo wrote:

Hey, guess what …who gives a fuck what you think? if you’re honestly stupid enough to not be able to tell the differenc ebetween being anti-administraion and anti-American…then what’s the point in talking to you anyway.

Everytime another pro-war, kill-em-all asshole calls someone who thinks that maybe invading a country, JUST BECAUSE SOME SPOILED LITTLE FUCKTARD WANTED TO BE A WAR PRESIDENT was a bad idea, a “coward”…well, it makes you look bad.

Am I anti-war? Fuck, yeah. You’re FOR war? War. That’s wat you’re in favor of, war? And you’re proud of that?

What a great American you are, sir.

Please keep posting Al-Harris. You prove my point every day.

Have a great night stewing about all the things your against.

Pro-War, hardly. Doing the right thing absoultely.

Did you read what the troops think of you?

Have a great night. Your tiresome arguments no doubt will make sense to someone, if not you can go fight with someone who gives a shit.

If you honestly think this war is “doing the right thing” then you’re a pathetic representative for our Armed Forces.

Read a book.

Keep up the good work!!! The troops value your support.

[/quote]

I want to bring the troops home. In fact, I didn’t want them to go in the first place.

You’re pro-war.

With my plan, a little over 2,100 less American troops would have died.

So…who actually supports the troops?

You’re wrapped in the flag, but naked underneath.

43

Harris

Keep up the good work!! Don’t ever stop posting kid…your wisdom and insight are a beacon in a dark world.

44

First, once again, I didn’t say it was the only threat to our interests. I said it was a threat to US interests. Next, I didn’t say terrorism per se, I said state sponsored terrorism, and specifically the risk that state-sponsored terrorists would be able to access WMD.

In total, given all the factors I listed in my first post and the specific post-9/11 worry about terrorists obtaining WMD from rogue states, combined with the geopolitical importance of the region and with the “cost” side analysis of going into Iraq vs. going in to other countries and the “benefits” side of succeeding in Iraq vs. going in and succeeding in some of those other countries, one can see the rationale behind going into Iraq.

As to the weapons inspectors, as I said before, I don’t want to get into the WMD issue on this thread, except to note that somehow none of the WMD Iraq was documented to possess seem to be around, inspectors were locked out, and there was lots of time during which they were locked out while we were “rushing to war,” during which time the WMD became unnaccounted for.

45

BB, I understand your political stance and I do believe you understand mine in regards to this particular issue. However, I hope you understand when I say that the SOUL factor that topped this action above all others was the sell of WMD’s to the public. Without it, you would have no point at all about why we went into Iraq instead of the other dictatorships, regardless of political bias. I know you don’t want to discuss it further, and really I don’t, but it will be the one factor that will fall into the history books and I seriously doubt that, unless Bush writes the passage himself, future generations will look back on this and see our strategy as top notch and relatively error free. As much as you or others would love to sell “Iraq Democracy” as our main reason, it wasn’t originally. If it were, there are other countries out there in need of some help and I seriously doubt we will be running towards them in war regardless of their WMD’s and other weapon capabilities.

[quote]That wasn’t what I said. I never said Iraq was the sole source of black-market weaponry. I said the administration viewed Iraq as a particularly likely source from which terrorists could obtain WMD, and state sponsorship (i.e. training, intel resources, and just a place in which they would be essentially beyond the reach of western commandos/police-type forces).
[/quote]

I know you didn’t say those words. I am expanding on what you did say because I seriously doubt that taking out Iraq has dented their resolve or hindered them from finding other sources of materials. These are religious extremists. They will be a tad bit harder to dissuade especially considering their lack of value for life.

However, I seriously doubt we will be running into too many other countries. I think North Korea may be our largest threat currently…meanwhile, all of our men and women are fighting suicide bombers in a sand lot. The true “benefits” won’t be discerned until after we learn what the future actually holds for that country, the entire region and the other enemies we have. I think it is a little early to be calling “victory”.

46

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we “liberated” the country?

Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

Let’s send you there to punch the terrorists in the throat. End of problem. (And Marmadogg, why the user-name change?)

You make less and less senss every post. Try to keep up.[/quote]

Why don’t you answer what I said? And please learn to type/spell – it’s already hard enough to make sense out of your ramblings.

47

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we “liberated” the country?

Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

So the Saudis are different how? Or the Russians with the Chechnyans? Or the British with the Irish?

I know those thirteen degrees and 243 IQ are gonna help you one day, but you need logic classes. [/quote]

What does your post have to do with anything I wrote? And why do liberals never answer a question? When they do give an answer, it truly makes no sense. “Hey, it was hyperbole!” I guess that’s what makes them liberals.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we “liberated” the country?

Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

Let’s send you there to punch the terrorists in the throat. End of problem. (And Marmadogg, why the user-name change?)

You make less and less senss every post. Try to keep up.

Why don’t you answer what I said? And please learn to type/spell – it’s already hard enough to make sense out of your ramblings.

[/quote]

I didn’t answer because you didn’t really say anything.

First, you didn’t know the difference between a fascist and a liberal

Then, you confuse a dictator with a terrorist.

Then, you go back to the "neck-punching’ thing, which just makes you sound…there isn’t even a word, man.

And, oh yeah, there was a typo. I surely must be retarded.

Everyone’s laughing at you.

49

[quote]harris447 wrote:
but history shows that America prefers friendly dictatorships. (Central/South America, for example).

[/quote]

If this is true why did the U.S. work to establish democracies in West Germany and Japan after WWII? Why not install a friendly dictator? This was a situation, much like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States had boots on the ground and a direct hand in the formation of the new governments. Why don’t these examples show that America actually prefers democracies when they have the choice?

50

Opt, are you being dense on purpose? After waging a huge war you get the opportunity to nation build.

Woohoo, it’s a party man, and dictators are no good at parties.

51

[quote]optprime wrote:
harris447 wrote:
but history shows that America prefers friendly dictatorships. (Central/South America, for example).

If this is true why did the U.S. work to establish democracies in West Germany and Japan after WWII? Why not install a friendly dictator? This was a situation, much like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States had boots on the ground and a direct hand in the formation of the new governments. Why don’t these examples show that America actually prefers democracies when they have the choice?

[/quote]

Because everyone was watching.

52

[quote]vroom wrote:
Opt, are you being dense on purpose? After waging a huge war you get the opportunity to nation build.

Woohoo, it’s a party man, and dictators are no good at parties.[/quote]

I don’t really understand what you are trying to say here, so I guess I am dense by nature. Help me out a bit.

53

Defense of the War:

  1. In light of 9/11, it was time to reassess any threats we might have that were current.

  2. We had reached the end of diplomacy on the Iraq matter - 12 years of protracted, niggling war combined with incompetent international management.

  3. We needed to demonstrate power projection.

  4. We believed Saddam to be too dangerous in his international capacity as a weapons broker for Islamist elements. His unaccounted weapons and gray area of status after inspectors were booted out represented a dangerous unknown to our national security.

  5. Human rights issues.

  6. The theory that what was truly in our best national interests was not a status quo (the Realist approach) but a chance that some emergence of liberal government in the area would modernize Iraq and countries around it.

The argument offered over and over here - that we had no right to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam was a bad guy and a threat because we are therefore obligated to invade all places that have bad guys and are threats - is faulty.

There is no moral or logical relationship that says ‘because I can’t help all, I can’t help any.’

If you think this is true, next time you walk down the street and a homeless guy asks you for some change, you would have to tell him no because since you can’t help all the homeless guys, you therefore can’t help him.

Nonsense.

There are practical limits to what can be accomplished. There is no way the US can invade every single country and take out the bad guy - even if we wanted to. But that practical limitation does not preclude the US addressing the problem case by case. Iraq had quite a case built against it.

On this false theory, the intervention in Bosnia should have never happened under the principle that there were oppressed people in Iraq.

Anyone think that to be true? Me neither, so stop applying this faulty rationale.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Defense of the War:

  1. In light of 9/11, it was time to reassess any threats we might have that were current.

  2. We had reached the end of diplomacy on the Iraq matter - 12 years of protracted, niggling war combined with incompetent international management.

  3. We needed to demonstrate power projection.

  4. We believed Saddam to be too dangerous in his international capacity as a weapons broker for Islamist elements. His unaccounted weapons and gray area of status after inspectors were booted out represented a dangerous unknown to our national security.

  5. Human rights issues.

  6. The theory that what was truly in our best national interests was not a status quo (the Realist approach) but a chance that some emergence of liberal government in the area would modernize Iraq and countries around it.

The argument offered over and over here - that we had no right to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam was a bad guy and a threat because we are therefore obligated to invade all places that have bad guys and are threats - is faulty.

There is no moral or logical relationship that says ‘because I can’t help all, I can’t help any.’

If you think this is true, next time you walk down the street and a homeless guy asks you for some change, you would have to tell him no because since you can’t help all the homeless guys, you therefore can’t help him.

Nonsense.

There are practical limits to what can be accomplished. There is no way the US can invade every single country and take out the bad guy - even if we wanted to. But that practical limitation does not preclude the US addressing the problem case by case. Iraq had quite a case built against it.

On this false theory, the intervention in Bosnia should have never happened under the principle that there were oppressed people in Iraq.

Anyone think that to be true? Me neither, so stop applying this faulty rationale.[/quote]

Realities of the war:

In 1998, a letter signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfel, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, Presidential Advisor for the Middle East Elliot Abrams, and Special Iraq Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was sent to then-president Bill Clinton.

The letter urged him to go to war in Iraq, without bothering with UN approval.

In 2000, the Republican Party platform called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.” - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill

"At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Queda. I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentago had been telling me that the word was we would be invading iraq sometime in 2002.

Richard Clarke
Washington Post
March 22, 2004

We went to war because the people this country elected wanted to, and have wanted to, for a long time

55

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we “liberated” the country?

Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

Let’s send you there to punch the terrorists in the throat. End of problem. (And Marmadogg, why the user-name change?)

You make less and less senss every post. Try to keep up.

Why don’t you answer what I said? And please learn to type/spell – it’s already hard enough to make sense out of your ramblings.

I didn’t answer because you didn’t really say anything.

First, you didn’t know the difference between a fascist and a liberal

Then, you confuse a dictator with a terrorist.

Then, you go back to the "neck-punching’ thing, which just makes you sound…there isn’t even a word, man.

And, oh yeah, there was a typo. I surely must be retarded.

Everyone’s laughing at you.

[/quote]
Now, besides being a fascist, you’re a mindreader too?

If you can’t see the connection between a dictator (who rules by terror) and a terrorist, then you are simply beyond a laughingstock. I am really beginning to pity you.

And you still refuse to answer any questions: Would you punch an old lady in the throat? Why do you make fun of someone with a disability? Why do you vote for the liberal-big government agenda, knowing full well how disasterous these have been for humanity? You can’t answer these, because you’d have to finally admit to yourself what you are: a fascist.

You and I are not of the same species. All you can do is pitch slime, about which you should know more than anyone.

56

For those who truly want to know why we went to war in Iraq please read George Packer’s “Assassins Gate”.

You won’t be able to tell if he is conservative or liberal, for those of you hung up on labels.

It is a very factual and insightful view into the neo-cons and others who shaped the war.

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BB, I understand your political stance and I do believe you understand mine in regards to this particular issue. However, I hope you understand when I say that the SOUL factor that topped this action above all others was the sell of WMD’s to the public. Without it, you would have no point at all about why we went into Iraq instead of the other dictatorships, regardless of political bias. I know you don’t want to discuss it further, and really I don’t, but it will be the one factor that will fall into the history books and I seriously doubt that, unless Bush writes the passage himself, future generations will look back on this and see our strategy as top notch and relatively error free. As much as you or others would love to sell “Iraq Democracy” as our main reason, it wasn’t originally. If it were, there are other countries out there in need of some help and I seriously doubt we will be running towards them in war regardless of their WMD’s and other weapon capabilities.[/quote]

I wasn’t selling “Iraq Democracy” as the main reason. I was stating it as a main reason, as in one of the 4 or 5 most important (and probably one of the 2 or 3, though those have quite a few interdependencies).

As I said above, you have to think of all the reasons in the aggregate – and, I should say, there’s a synergy to them when considered together. It’s more important to have a democratic ally in the region because of the region’s importance to the world economy. Saddam was more of a threat to the region because of his WMD program and his past actions. Iraq was considered more of a threat to pass WMD to terrorists because we thought they had WMD and because we knew they had previously been a state sponsor of terrorism. Lots of interdependence in the analysis.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

That wasn’t what I said. I never said Iraq was the sole source of black-market weaponry. I said the administration viewed Iraq as a particularly likely source from which terrorists could obtain WMD, and state sponsorship (i.e. training, intel resources, and just a place in which they would be essentially beyond the reach of western commandos/police-type forces).

Professor X wrote:

I know you didn’t say those words. I am expanding on what you did say because I seriously doubt that taking out Iraq has dented their resolve or hindered them from finding other sources of materials. These are religious extremists. They will be a tad bit harder to dissuade especially considering their lack of value for life.[/quote]

I wasn’t saying that they were absolutely stopped from obtaining WMD. I said that the administration viewed Iraq as among the most likely countries that would serve as a source of WMD to terrorists. To the extent you eliminate an easier source, you make it harder to obtain. To the extent it’s harder to obtain, it’s less likely it will be obtained.

I think revisiting the idea that there are regional hegemons with strong interests w/r/t the other two of the three “Axis of Evil” countries makes those two (N. Korea and Iran, respectively) less likely to serve as a source of WMD to terrorists. Of course, China exerts more influence on N. Korea than Russia does on Iran, but still Russia and China have influence, have Islamic terrorism problems of their own, and have no interest in seeing WMDs loosed to terrorist who might use such weapons on them. Pakistan is more problematic, but from what I understand we are now essentially ensuring their actual supply of weapons, if not necessarily all their technology.

A key piece of the puzzle is Syria, especially if Syria was the destination for any WMDs that happened to have made it out of Iraq. They are less subject to pressure from regional hegemons China and Russia, and not to the EU either.

We’ll see what happens. Anyway, the administration view seems to have been – and it made sense in the framework – that eliminating Iraq as a source of WMD for terrorists would diminish the risk of terrorists getting WMD.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

In total, given all the factors I listed in my first post and …the “cost” side analysis of going into Iraq vs. going in to other countries and the “benefits” side of succeeding in Iraq vs. going in and succeeding in some of those other countries, one can see the rationale behind going into Iraq.

Professor X wrote:

However, I seriously doubt we will be running into too many other countries. I think North Korea may be our largest threat currently…meanwhile, all of our men and women are fighting suicide bombers in a sand lot. The true “benefits” won’t be discerned until after we learn what the future actually holds for that country, the entire region and the other enemies we have. I think it is a little early to be calling “victory”.[/quote]

I don’t think we’ll be running into N. Korea either. See my point re: China above.

With any cost/benefit analysis that you’re doing ahead of time – which is a very good time to do a cost/benefit analysis, one would think – you don’t know with certainty which of the costs or benefits will be realized. You’re basing your analysis on best-available probabilities and estimates.

I’m just goint to point out as a formality that you aren’t quoting “victory” from any declaration I’ve made. Then I’ll point out next that “mission accomplished” depends on the definition of the objective of the mission – in the case of the banner, irrespective of the press, I think the objective that was referenced was getting Saddam’s regime out of power. But that’s just me.

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we “liberated” the country?

Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

Let’s send you there to punch the terrorists in the throat. End of problem. (And Marmadogg, why the user-name change?)

You make less and less senss every post. Try to keep up.

Why don’t you answer what I said? And please learn to type/spell – it’s already hard enough to make sense out of your ramblings.

I didn’t answer because you didn’t really say anything.

First, you didn’t know the difference between a fascist and a liberal

Then, you confuse a dictator with a terrorist.

Then, you go back to the "neck-punching’ thing, which just makes you sound…there isn’t even a word, man.

And, oh yeah, there was a typo. I surely must be retarded.

Everyone’s laughing at you.

Now, besides being a fascist, you’re a mindreader too?

If you can’t see the connection between a dictator (who rules by terror) and a terrorist, then you are simply beyond a laughingstock. I am really beginning to pity you.

And you still refuse to answer any questions: Would you punch an old lady in the throat? Why do you make fun of someone with a disability? Why do you vote for the liberal-big government agenda, knowing full well how disasterous these have been for humanity? You can’t answer these, because you’d have to finally admit to yourself what you are: a fascist.

You and I are not of the same species. All you can do is pitch slime, about which you should know more than anyone.

[/quote]

Yeah…I called TSB on you, like, three pages ago. You’re an idiot and you have no point.

To steal from Vroom: Bad Bye.