News America has a right to force their views apon iraq?

[Kingofthedamned]

who here actually believes america has a right to force their views apon iraq?...yes they need their systems cleaned out but who says america should be the one to do it? well...america did as far as i can see...america showed the world that their were problems in iraq and when the world said what can we do about this america said well do something...and since no one has the resources to stand up ageanst america no one does...this is my view..in short..please let me know of your views.

 

[Polly]

"Despair is a lie we tell ourselves". Courage people, think about what we can do and start doing it, in a persistent way. Stopping every once in a while to review the result and modify accordingly. I shall not despair.

 

[member 5645]

I will offer you two bits of advice, and I'm trying to be polite here:

1> Try the search feature out.As you can imagine, this topic has been beaten to death. Have a new view point? feel free to share it.

2>Try using some proper grammar and puncuation. You don't have to be perfect, but atleast try! Half ellipsis, no paragraphs, and no capitalization is making your post a pain in the ass to read.

 

[Polly]

1> Try the search feature out.As you can imagine, this topic has been beaten to death. Have a new view point? feel free to share it.

2>Try using some proper grammar and puncuation. You don't have to be perfect, but atleast try! Half ellipsis, no paragraphs, and no capitalization is making your post a pain in the ass to read.

Greetings Phatmonky, I think

1) King has very ably intimated to us a new (emotive) view point, namely the new level of despair and hopelessness he had had as of his writing, and

2) by using precisely the punctuation marks you mentioned, he is able to put across the decoherence, occassioned no doubt by choked feelings, quite effectively.

I try to learn from you

 

[Kingofthedamned]

I am sorry about the grammer...english is my second language and i struggle with grammer alot. again sorry.

 

[Artman]

who here actually believes america has a right to force their views apon iraq?...yes they need their systems cleaned out but who says america should be the one to do it? well...america did as far as i can see...america showed the world that their were problems in iraq and when the world said what can we do about this america said well do something...and since no one has the resources to stand up ageanst america no one does...this is my view..in short..please let me know of your views.

Just ignore phatmonky, he doesn't get out much (out of this forum that is)

He's right, however, that this topic has been covered pretty thoroughly, but here's my thoughts on it one more time:

Iraq was in bad shape other than just politically. They had been under UN sanctions for ten years that had placed them in a deep economic depression. They still had not fully recovered from the first Gulf war and they were struggling under a tyrantic dictator, who blamed the USA for all of his country's problems. Iraq under Hussein sponsored and applauded terrorist efforts against the USA, refused to submit to UN inspections in a timely manner (as dictated by the conditions of the ending of the first Gulf war). Diplomacy had failed, hatred directed at the USA was growing.

I believe that freeing Iraq of that dictator was necessary.

 

[member 5645]

Greetings Phatmonky, I think

1) King has very ably intimated to us a new (emotive) view point, namely the new level of despair and hopelessness he had had as of his writing, and

2) by using precisely the punctuation marks you mentioned, he is able to put across the decoherence, occassioned no doubt by choked feelings, quite effectively.

I try to learn from you

I laughed

My point is that I would LOVE to engage in more Iraq conversation, particularly if it allows me to post something that hasn't been posted a million times. Simply trying to cut off the grammar problem early on. I have an opposing view point to the original poster, which could be good for some debate, but don't want to spend X pages trying to decipher his intended message.

 

[member 5645]

I am sorry about the grammer...english is my second language and i struggle with grammer alot. again sorry.

Understandable. You're welcome to come and post as much as you want. No apologies needed, just trying to give you a heads up.

 

[jammieg]

Basically right or wrong is dependent on where you sit, America attacked and destroyed the Hussein's kingdom because he might have gotten nukes and biochemical missles and he might aid terrorists and that's enough of a threat for the leaders and Intelligence officials of the U.S. to go against the U.N. and commit a lesser wrong to solve a greater possible wrong. Is this right or wrong? I don't know I don't have all the information, there is probably very little in this world that is purely right or wrong, but I do believe that if Americans had all the honest facts(not the disinformation and personal opinions) that they would have made a better decision than anyone person could make or small group of elected could as to going to war, this might seem naive but if they didn't make the decision they wouldn't feel as obligated to carry it through or to reap or pay for the consequences. There are so many lies in politics it's difficult to believe anything they or the press say anymore, everyone's got a slant on something, for the greater good of course.

 

[member 5645]

Kingofthedamned, here's some Fodder for this fire:
I'm just going to go ahead and run the gamut here...In a Q&A format.


Sanctions were working, we should have given them more time. Why didn't we?

There were two de facto solutions to Iraq. Leave Saddam in power with sanctions until he cooperated fully or remove him.
Those that wish to leave sanctions care little about the pragmatic effects on human life, or they are ignorant of them.
I present sanction results on the Iraqi populous:

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

We could further extrapolate potential deaths from leaving Saddam in power and it would lend even more support to invasion.
It seems everyone,except the complete nutters, think that Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken care of. The argument often comes over whether the war came too soon. Not even including Saddam's actions before sanctions, I feel there is ample evidence supporting a war. This is due to the result it will have for Americans, Iraqis, and the world.

I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.



Wasn't the war illegal?

David Ackerman, American Law Division, would be slow to say the war is illegal.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...ternational+law+legal+-illegal&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

As it stands, the UN has no defining guidelines on preemption. No ruling body has found the war to be illegal, and none will. International law needs to be addressed before making such bold claims that so many ignorant have made. The reality is that the war is legal until there is a law against it. Preemption falls in the UN's pathetic description of self defense. The USA needs to assist in leading the charge to define self defense clearly.

That's nice phatmonky, but why do YOU support the war?

Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there.
WMD or not, the questions have to be -

How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD?

On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world?

Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed?



After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

-a liberation of an oppressed people
-a new trading partner
-a new security partner
-the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
-the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
-a catalyst for democracy in the region

The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections.
After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement.


But muslims will hate us if we go into Iraq!
Someone explain how the Iraqis would be less likely to turn to fundamentalist islam if we had continued to starve them of food and medical supplies
How would our bases, to contain Saddam, in Saudi Arabia become less antagonizing if we had left Saddam in power??

Seems the only thing that can stop Fundamentalism is money and sovereignty. It also seems neither of those would be possible for the common Iraqi if Saddam was in power.



Oh you neo-con nut you! I bet you want to have man love with Bush because you support the Iraq war!

Actually, here's a list I made one time about the things that should have been done differently, right off the bat:

Marstial law and curfews from day one. Loosen restrictions as it becomes possible.

Secure emotional sites that are sure to incite the populous.Not all of them, but there needs to be a visual attempt.

US troops in the middle of Iraq, foreign nations on the outskirts doing perimeter control (where we have many of our guys now)No body bags in Europe means less problems with countries have their troops there. Not to mention, our troops are better equipped and trained than many of the smaller nations we have scattered about in hot zones. Uniformity of nations would go a long way. The contesting of American troops under British control, and vice versa, should have never come up, as it should have never been an option.

Hire Iraqis for as many busy work jobs as you can. Don't bring in bulldozers if you can put to work 25 Iraqi men for several days. Don't hire contractors except where it is needed (telecom jobs and what not).

**** Bremer. This guy was a pathetic administrator from the beginning.

Why weren't there mobile cell phone towers from day 1? 2 months in we ship them in? Cell communication, instead of driving messages back and forth and limited satellite phone access, would have made things move more quickly in the beginning.

Sistani is the man. This should have been an overwhelming thought, and he should have played a front roll in advising us and speaking often.

Go get that Iraqi girl (she is still alive, was posted a few days ago) with the tumors and give her free emergency help in the US. Send her back to Iraq for PR. We are not bad guys, but are sure not letting enough people IN Iraq know that.

No-bid contracts in Iraq? Have some common sense. It's a valid business practice, but Cheney, Halliburton. Should have never given the critics a chance to start the conpiracy theory machine.

That should be enough to answer your question regarding my opinion, and get the party rolling

 

[russ_watters]

who here actually believes america has a right to force their views apon iraq?...yes they need their systems cleaned out but who says america should be the one to do it?

Unfortunately, the US is has to do it because we're the only ones who will. And because we can, we should.

The UN has shown its impotence on countless situations where force was required: Rwanda and Yugoslavia are two good recent examples. "Never again" has been replaced by "if I don't look at it, it didn't happen."

 

[Burnsys]

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

I have another code:

Sd= iraqis killed by saddam regime
Sa= iraqis killed becouse of sanctions
Wa=killed by the war

If Sd > Sa + Wa then
If Sa => Wa THEN
WAR = RIGHT
ELSE
sanctions=right
end if
elseif Sd < Sa then
Sanctions=Wrong
elseif Sd < Wa then
WAR=Wrong
elseif (Sd * 10) < Sa then
Sanctions= Genocidal
Elseif (Sd * 10) < Wa then
War = Genocidal
else if (sd * 10) < Wa + Sa then
USAGOV=Genocidal
END IF

 

[Gokul43201]

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

Two objections :

(1) The value of X depends on when the 'present' is. So the code is not time independent. To compare number of deaths in a 12 year period with those in a 2 year period is meaningless. So, really, this code is useless until about 2015; unless you change the definition of X to mean "difference in number of deaths per year". That would render the code usable now...but "ouch!"

(2) The code is attempting to provide justification, on the basis of a single factor - an oversimplification of the problem, and a poor one at that. Going by just this one factor, the US could colonize all of the third world and improve conditions everywhere (while suffering, itself). While this would be a great, and altruistic act, it still does not justify such an action by any reasonable standards.

 

[Gokul43201]

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

It's a pity there's only one data point for 'before the sanctions'. Now there's no statistical basis upon which to evaluate a difference between before and after. Still, I believe there was a difference.

But is it fair to say that this difference was entirely due to the sanctions alone ? Could there not be other reasons ? Devastation to the economy from having to wage a war against the rest of the world; damage to infrastructure and the attendant cost of recovery; possible effects of DU...in fact I could produce that same list and conclude that it is proof of the effects of DU. That would be shoddy reasoning woudn't it.

I'm not denying that the sanctions were killing people in Iraq, but the proof provided is incomplete, at best, and smells more like negligent insincerity..

 

[Gokul43201]

After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

1-a liberation of an oppressed people
2-a new trading partner
3-a new security partner
4-the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
5-the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
6-a catalyst for democracy in the region

Here's what i think :

1 - a fair, and valid reason, but it was not the motivation (also add Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and many others to this list. Afghanistan ? Yes, Afghanistan was not invaded because it's people were oppressed, but luckily for its people, it's leaders were stupid.)

2 - not a justification for war, but an added bonus

3 - nearly the same as 2, but this is a better reason because it affects global security

4 - good reason, but the means of executing this (specifically, whether it takes a war to hold a nation accountable) are not implicit

5 - A violation of the ceasefire requirements should alone justify the war, strictly from a legal point of view. But try selling that to the people.

6 - this is fairly speculative. It may catalyze other reactions as well.


Here's what I take objection to :

1) misleading the people (mushroom clouds, al qaeda links, aluminum tubes, no disclosure of expense or time-frame)

2) the "you better make the case for the war 'cause we've made up our minds" attitude. The war was primarily a PNAC agenda motivated move, and the administration decided to take advantage of 9/11 to push this agenda. That's politics, but it's also shameful.

3) the pathetic excuse of an attempt at garnering international legitimacy and support. Without Powell, even this much would not have happened. Could not a much larger allied force have made the loss of collateral smaller, and the resolve of the opposition, weaker ? But maybe it would involve giving away too large a chunk of the kickbacks ?

4) The miserably incompetent handling of the whole operation. Well, you can't expect much when the operation is based and executed along a single ideology. That Rumsfeld is having a second chance at bat, and being commended on his performance, is a travesty.

5) the timing. It would make sense to take care of the situation in Afghnistan first. There were a lot of US troops in Afghanistan that had to be diverted to Iraq. (And there were NATO troops as well.) But then, might people have forgotten 9/11 if you waited too long ? After all, when popular support for the war was highest, over 40% of the supporters polled believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What other reasons justify (more strongly,) rushing into war (with insufficient troops, inadequate planning, and virtually no international support)?

 

[Artman]

But is it fair to say that this difference was entirely due to the sanctions alone ? Could there not be other reasons ? Devastation to the economy from having to wage a war against the rest of the world; damage to infrastructure and the attendant cost of recovery; possible effects of DU...in fact I could produce that same list and conclude that it is proof of the effects of DU. That would be shoddy reasoning woudn't it.

Does it matter really why they were dying? The world was unable to help them under Hussein.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does it matter really why they were dying? The world was unable to help them under Hussein.

I agree with this, though it's not self-evident that the situation could be reversed by a change of regime.

I'm only objecting to Phatmonky's (and UNICEF's) use of this data as categorical proof of the effects of the sanctions.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with this, though it's not self-evident that the situation could be reversed by a change of regime.

Why not? If the conditions that led to those deaths were a direct result of Saddam's regime and the international reaction to Saddam's regime, it should be self evident that a regime change removes those conditions and reduces the deaths. Heck, the new regime doesn't even have to be better - it will get a long, long honeymoon in which the international community will at worst, cut it some slack, and at best dump enormous quantities of aid on it.

 

[Gokul43201]

A change in regime does not automatically eraze the effect of the Gulf war on the economy or infrastructure. It does not remove any possibly hazardous materials in the ground, water or air.

 

[Burnsys]

Why not? If the conditions that led to those deaths were a direct result of Saddam's regime and the international reaction to Saddam's regime, it should be self evident that a regime change removes those conditions and reduces the deaths. Heck, the new regime doesn't even have to be better - it will get a long, long honeymoon in which the international community will at worst, cut it some slack, and at best dump enormous quantities of aid on it.

I still don't get it... america removed saddam becouse he killed many many disidents of his Totalitarian goverment... But now american provisional government is killing dissidents at a higher rate that saddam did...

my view of this war:

1-a Transfer from the taxpayer money to the military industrial complex( Boing, Northman group, etc.)
2-a Transfer from the taxpayer money to the corporations that will rebuild irak
3-A Gateway to do the same in the midle east
4-Explotation of the oil fields by american oil corporations.
5-Set the precedent for the so called "Preemptive atacks" which will alow us gov to invade any country they want under any pretext, true or false...
6-Reactivation of America Economy.
7-New markets for America Corporations

 

[russ_watters]

A change in regime does not automatically eraze the effect of the Gulf war on the economy or infrastructure. It does not remove any possibly hazardous materials in the ground, water or air.

You're implying perfection is required, like an overnight shift to a 1st world democracy. That isn't requried here: all that is required is that conditions be significantly better (how much is open to debate). With food trucks rolling in right behind the tanks, conditions did get better overnight and with rebuilding (building) of the infrastructure, they continue to get better.

 

[russ_watters]

I still don't get it... america removed saddam becouse he killed many many disidents of his Totalitarian goverment... But now american provisional government is killing dissidents at a higher rate that saddam did...

I can't help you with that. Its a definition problem. If you don't see the difference between someone who dissents with words and someone who dissents with a gun or bomb, there isn't anything I can do.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're implying perfection is required, like an overnight shift to a 1st world democracy. That isn't requried here: all that is required is that conditions be significantly better (how much is open to debate). With food trucks rolling in right behind the tanks, conditions did get better overnight and with rebuilding (building) of the infrastructure, they continue to get better.

This line of argument is veering away from what I originally meant, but perhaps didn't say clearly.

My original objection was merely to the proof for the effects of the sanctions.

To this, artman replied that whatever be the reasons for the death rate, it was brought on by Saddam's actions.

And to this, I agreed, but noted that a mere replacement of Saddam by XYZ does not necessarily make things better. My intent was to highlight that Saddam's actions since 1990 may not be the only reason for the plight of Iraq since then. Had Saddam been killed sometime after 1990 and some Shia/Sunni leader take his place, things might be not have gone back to pre-1990 levels, even if the new leader disbanded all illegal weapons programs and the sanctions were removed.


I'm not denying that the post war efforts aren't doing a lot of good. My statement was not aimed at what is happening currently at all.

 

[member 5645]

Two objections :

(1) The value of X depends on when the 'present' is. So the code is not time independent. To compare number of deaths in a 12 year period with those in a 2 year period is meaningless. So, really, this code is useless until about 2015; unless you change the definition of X to mean "difference in number of deaths per year". That would render the code usable now...but "ouch!"

(2) The code is attempting to provide justification, on the basis of a single factor - an oversimplification of the problem, and a poor one at that. Going by just this one factor, the US could colonize all of the third world and improve conditions everywhere (while suffering, itself). While this would be a great, and altruistic act, it still does not justify such an action by any reasonable standards.

1>No it's not independent. And I believe that you CAN look at a 2 year period, not month by month. When we cross the threshold into making the war worse than sanctions, then we have made a mistake, and I admit that. The key is to make sure that if initial casualties must be high to implement change, that subsequent casualties are lessened and quality of life is increased to offset the initial loss.
Morality is relative, and as I've stated above, I can bring this down to a moral issue.

2>As you know my response would be...My post is to be taken in it's entirety as justification That single point wasn't my case for war. It is part of my case AGAINST sanctions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fair enough...I don't see this thread going anywhere.

 

[BobG]

A longer term look at child mortality rates shows the impact of the sanctions even more clearly.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqu5est.pdf

The problem is that the same data was used by two opposing viewpoints: Those that said the data proved Hussein needed to be removed and those that said the data proved the sanctions needed to be removed (infant mortality rates had been steadily falling and living conditions improving under Hussein prior to the Gulf War and imposition of sanctions).

If mortality rates were the primary concern, eliminating sanctions would have been the more efficient option.

Which points out the real reason for the invasion. Enough international pressure was building that we soon would have seen at least a slow easing of sanctions. We couldn't ease the sanctions because we wanted Hussein out of power.

It's a circular logic. We want Hussein gone, so we punish his country, then claim he has to be removed in order for us to remove the pain we're inflicting.

There were some valid reasons to have considered invading Iraq. The mortality rate wasn't one of them.

Additionally, unless the various Iraqi factions stop fighting each other and the US, living conditions and the mortality rate will get worse instead of better (but we can pass the buck on that to the insurgents, not our inability to instantly unite a seriously divided country). Given the performance of Bush-Rumsfield so far, we might be at least four years from seeing things even begin to improve even to the conditions that existed under Hussein.

 

[member 5645]

Fair enough...I don't see this thread going anywhere.

Well I knew that on page one :p I just was humoring everyone since I'm such an ass for explaining that this thread has been done a million times