The Iraq War

[Deleted member 79804]

I voted yes but only on a "technically." With the existing knowledge that we have now and the incredibly low public opinion of that war, then I'd say no but if you sent me back in time to 2003 with the existing knowledge we had and asked me I'd probably say yes. I'd probably buy what they were saying about WMDs, I'm not very knowledgeable on foreign policy issues like that in the first place, so I could see myself believing in what they were saying and being in favor of the war. Though Ragemage brings up an interesting point that I've never heard before, I didn't know that about the Kurds.

 

[Makta]

Considering the entire Kurd population as we know it would be completely exterminated today had we not stopped Hussein, I'd say yes, it is better. We stopped a genocide. It'd be like if the Allies didn't stop Hitler from genociding the Jews just because he was bringing stability to Germany at the time. If someone's committing genocide against a group of people, they need to be put down like the dog they are. End of discussion.

Call me stupid, a moron, whatever you'd like. I don't care. If someone's attempting genocide, they need to be stopped, bugger the consequences afterwards, so long as an entire group of people doesn't get erased.

Correct me if i'm wrong but after the first Iraqi war he did not do anything major agains the Kurds?

 

[Throatpunch]

Correct me if i'm wrong but after the first Iraqi war he did not do anything major agains the Kurds?

Specify which Iraqi war you mean

 

[zegh8578]

Considering the entire Kurd population as we know it would be completely exterminated today had we not stopped Hussein, I'd say yes, it is better. We stopped a genocide.

Eh, so... genocidal activities peak in 1988
Iraq is invaded in 1991 - NOT for genocide, but for their own invasion of Kuwait
Iraq is then left to do as they please untill 2003

2003
-1988
= 15 year delay

Better late than never, or something?

 

[Makta]

Eh, so... genocidal activities peak in 1988
Iraq is invaded in 1991 - NOT for genocide, but for their own invasion of Kuwait
Iraq is then left to do as they please untill 2003

2003
-1988
= 15 year delay

Better late than never, or something?

That's what i was thinking. Love the Kurds and as far as i remebered there was not much of a problem after 91. Not sure about the Shiite's tho.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Call me stupid, a moron, whatever you'd like. I don't care. If someone's attempting genocide, they need to be stopped, bugger the consequences afterwards, so long as an entire group of people doesn't get erased.

I am curious though. What would you call the quarter of a million dead people, which got killed since 2001 by the US and Europe in their War on Terror, and all the wars, conflicts and fighting which followed it. And which is apparantly still going on in form of drone strikes, bombing raids and the support of so called freedom fighters and rebells.

Sometimes, I feel like this whole situation between the middle east and Europe/US goes like this. We have 2 or 3 people fighting each other with their fists. We see it. And we go and sell one of them a gun. Now the person with the gun, shoots one of the other guys.
And now we blame him, for shooting them.

 

[Gorefiend]

I supported the war and I still support greater engagement in the middle east. Break open that hornets nest to remove it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Even if you're doing it with your face?

 

[Ragemage]

I'm referring to this genocide by the way, for those who asked: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/middleeast/05iraq.html?_r=0

snip

I never said the US or United Nations were in the right for what they did in Iraq. The question was, do I support the war? I answered yes because hey, we killed a genocidal maniac who used lethal gases on his own people in order to test the effects. Both sides did horrible things though, I'm certainly not denying that. I only support the war because it dethroned a horrible, horrible man, and gave his people justice.

 

[zegh8578]

I'm referring to this genocide by the way, for those who asked: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/middleeast/05iraq.html?_r=0

Which refers to the 1988 gas-bombing, that nobody really reacted to, unless you count "retconning" of political events.
Nobody sought to stop it.
Nobody stopped it.
Saddam did what he intended to do, and then went to smoke himself a cigar.

If someone some day in the future decides to bomb the Germans, they can take credit for having saved the Jews, I guess

 

[Ragemage]

The difference with your analogy is that, if someone bombed the Germans in the future over the Holocaust, it would make no sense because there's no one still alive who had direct control over those events. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was alive and well at the time of the US's war with Iraq. Your analogy would only work if Hitler completed the Holocaust, the Allies did nothing about it, and only bombed Germany years later while Hitler was still in power.

Was genocide the reason we went to war? No, it was because we were told they had WMDs by British intelligence, and they invaded Kuwait. Saddam Hussein commited horrible atrocities against humanity, and he died for it. I think that made it worth it. That's just how I view it. Take my opinion however you wish, I don't really care. At the end of the day, we killed an evil, evil tyrant and his own people tried him and hanged him, much like what the Italians did to Mussolini at the end of WWII.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I'm referring to this genocide by the way, for those who asked: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/middleeast/05iraq.html?_r=0



I never said the US or United Nations were in the right for what they did in Iraq. The question was, do I support the war? I answered yes because hey, we killed a genocidal maniac who used lethal gases on his own people in order to test the effects. Both sides did horrible things though, I'm certainly not denying that. I only support the war because it dethroned a horrible, horrible man, and gave his people justice.

What do you think about Agent Orange?
Please, don't think I would be attacking you or your opinion, I often come of as agressive. I just don't see why we should have any more right to attack other nations than Sadam, Gadafi or even ISIS for that matter, when the governments we elected pretty much do the same shit, just over more time and with more indirect methods. But I honestly don't see that much of a difference, what ever if you're selling someone the materials to make said gas, or if you really presh the button by your self. - For example, there is a list of German industries which sold them to Sadam.
I mean, com on. Let us say you tell me that you intend to kill your wife. I sell you a gun. You murder your wife. We both get caught and face the judge. But, I tell them as defence, that I only sold you the components of the gun, it wasn't my fault that you put them together! Which sane judge is going to let that pass as defence? Particularly if I am known to have this habbit to selling weapons to questionable characters.

We are always very quick in our judgement, as we clearly know who's evil and who's good, who's a freedom fighter and who's an insurgent. The way how our allies and enemies change though ... yesterday we have been best buddies with Gadaffi when he supplied us with informations about Al Quaida, 10 years later he's our worst enemy. Not long ago we bombed Assad, because he was the biggest mofo, now we even consider to work with him in fighting ISIS ... what's next? If the Martians finally decide to erradicate us, will we invite ISIS to the UN, and offer them a seat?
This whole shit has been going for the last 60 years, and it is so hypocritical, that it really stinks. When we bomb the shit ouf of civilans, it's called colateral damage. If they do it, it's a war crime. We if we use chemical agents, it's declared as defoliant or amunition (see uranium), if Sadam is using it, it's a war crime. If the Soviets use mines, it's a war crime, if we use them, we just label it as something else and call it a day ...

 

[Ragemage]

snip

I'm not exactly sure what Agent Orange is. Do you have any sources for the US supplying Saddam with the chemicals he used on the Kurds?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Agent Orange, Vietnam, effects. Google it. It's some real fucked up shit.
I am just saying. Just because we say, we didn't use that shit to hit people directly doesn't mean it would be any better to what Saddam has done. We all know why that stuff get's used. The difference is, someone in favour of the Vietnam war would tell you that it was a war, and yeah, you have to deal with it. But the same argument never counts for our enemies. Be it the Soviets, Saddam or Assad. - I am not trying to find excuses, you know. I am just saying every nation can be a really big asshole and they will always tell the story from their point of view.
As far as I know the US has never supplied Saddam with components. But I believe some German companies did. With the excuse, that they didn't knew what Saddam would do with it ...

 

[Ragemage]

Ah. I've never heard of it before. I'll look into it.

I wouldn't condone my country for using chemical warfare either you know. Like I said before, I don't believe anyone was in the right when it came to this war, but Saddam was probably the biggest offender involved, at least when it came to the Iraq War. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, even though we can't get all the bad guys, at least on that day we got 1 of them.

 

[zegh8578]

Ah. I've never heard of it before. I'll look into it.

I wouldn't condone my country for using chemical warfare either you know. Like I said before, I don't believe anyone was in the right when it came to this war, but Saddam was probably the biggest offender involved, at least when it came to the Iraq War. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, even though we can't get all the bad guys, at least on that day we got 1 of them.

I don't think a lot of people here celebrate Saddam Hussein as a swell fellow, but eh... there are several problems with seeing this as a victory for the Kurds
First of all, because a tremendous ammount of them were killed, with zero reprecussions - at least zero direct reprecussions. This is something we keep seeing around the world, Rwanda is one of the best examples - Cambodia is another one.
The thing is... and this is sometimes difficult to truly grasp - these countries are sovereign. This means they can do whatever they want, inside their own borders. Iraq, Rwanda, Cambodia. There really is no rule that says "If a government slaughters its own people, it should be invaded by military force, and it's leader hanged." - there ARE encouragements to impose sanctions, though.
So, the reason nobody invaded to stop the Rwandan genocide isn't necesarily that we are a bunch of cold assholes - but that Rwanda is - technically - allowed to do whatever they want, for then to accept the consequences of sanctions.
In truly serious cases, UN-peacekeeping forces can be sent in, but eh... they tend to have laughably limited abilities to do ANYthing of value (Ask Yugoslavians and Georgians - oh, and 500 000 dead Rwandans ) (Even more insulting is "observers", who - quite litterally - stand and watch as people are massacred, again - see Yugoslavia)
(As a footnote I find it particularily interesting that the world allowed the Cambodian genocide to happen, except for the "bogeyman" Vietnam, which eventually invaded, deposed the Khmer Rouge regime - and on top of that, took the full brunt of a war with China, which was an ally of Cambodia at the time. In other words - little known fact - Vietnam and China has been at war, had a bunch of soldiers die in the jungles, and then accept peace after the Cambodian regime was fully dismantled)

In the end, you have a point if that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing for a lot of people, but it is only a side-effect of a different issue, and one that quite frankly came 15 years too late :I

 

[MutantScalper]

If the US had a problem with Saddam killing folks then I guess they didn't develop that feeling until after the Iraq-Iran war, something like a million dead in that war. The war where they egged Saddam on, sold him weapons and even some of the components used to make the poison gas he used to kill the Kurds in that village.

Casualty estimates of the 2003 war (150 000 - 700 000 with the lower estimates being extremely unlikely)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates
and the 2011 insurgency (100 000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraqi_insurgency_(2011–present)
and the Iraqi civil war 2014 - (70 000 since February 2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Civil_War_(2014–present)

I don't know what Saddam could have done to top those figures. It's just staggering to read those articles, there's a HUGE (no Trump) war going on in Iraq and even more war in the nearby regions. I guess since they are not ethnically white christians it's ok to look away and ignore it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well @zegh8578, not if you need to eliminate a bad guy to win the ellections and distract the people from domestic issues.
But at least, the predecessors of Bush understood why it was important to keep Saddam in power. To have someone that you can label as the next Hitler, when ever you need a bad guy, is always a good thing for your domestic policy.

 

[Ragemage]

snip

I don't disagree with what you're saying, except for when you said "justice came too late". I don't think justice has an expiration date. For example I completely support Nazi hunters looking for those involved with the Holocaust, even though most of those Nazis are now in their 90s. To me it can never be too late to dispense justice. Saddam reaped what he sowed. I have no doubt that someday every country will have to face up to the crimes they've committed. It's just a fact of life.

Think of it like how at one time Andrew Jackson was regarded as a hero of our nation, so much so his face has been plastered on the 20 dollar bill for decades. Now he's being replaced with Harriet Tubman as more and more atrocities towards Native Americans he committed come to light. It isn't much, but in the end all secrets come out, no matter how much we try to hide them.

 

[DarkCorp]

The first war I support because Saddam invaded an ally.

The second, iffy.

On the one hand, it was justified on a lie. Afterwards, regardless of justification, we should have did a much better job instead of the hack job G.W./Chaney and company did. Fix infrastructure, create jobs instead of massively screwing over all the Sunni personnel, especially, the military. We screwed the pooch on that one. Even someone with my opinion has to admit that.

But, regardless of whether it being a side-effect or not, we did help the Kurds.