The Iraq War

[Erich van Loon]

The Iraq war was completely unnecessary. We, America, did it for our own gain, and we payed a really big price for it. Plus, why start a war that will never end? Fighting terrorists only create more 'terrorists...'

 

[MutantScalper]

And will tell you what I told you before.

I DON'T GIVE A DAMN FUCK.

This whole thing was not more of a war than a box fight between a 3 year old and Mike Tyson. You call it a war, most of the idiots which supported for "cuz muslims did it!" probably as well. But that doesn't mean jack shit for me, as I am not so cynical to think that Saddam and his forces had even the slightest chance to keep up any noteworthy resistance.
Vietnam was in my opinion the last war the US had to fight. That's my personal definition. Deal with it. Or don't

Even with the Vietnam war there was no official declaration of war by the congress or something. So the yanks were over there as...what, tourists? It is a very strange thing, Vietnam war or whatever you want to call it.

 

[zegh8578]

Plus, why start a war that will never end?

That is indeed the question
Was it a huge oversight, a big whoopsie?
An entire novel has been written about a society that thrives on never-ending warfare (Orwell's 1984)
Of course, it is easy to brush it off as conspiracy theory, "SURELY a government isn't that callous and that cynical! SURELY they aren't maintaining a war in order to keep an enemy of society, keep fear levels high in order to reduce freedoms, suuurely they aren't maintaining an artificial war in order to keep weapons manufacturing going at a nice, good pace, SURELY there are no human governments that are this cynical! Surely??"

Even with the Vietnam war there was no official declaration of war by the congress or something. So the yanks were over there as...what, tourists? It is a very strange thing, Vietnam war or whatever you want to call it.

Declarations of war are as-good-as illegal after the creation of the UN. Anyone attacking someone "out of the blue" is illegal, so the only legal type of warfare is defensive - and you don't really need to declare your intention to defend yourself. This is the main reason you never see many outright declarations-of-war after WW2. In fact, I can think of only one - when Chad declared war on Sudan, only a few years ago, it was regarded as a curiousity for having been "declared" like that in the first place, and it was prooobably a symbolic declaration since no invasion followed (it was most likely a reaction to the Darfur situation), I'm struggling a bit to find good information, and I hafta run out in a few minutes, but look it up

 

[DarkCorp]

Except the war hasn't distracted all that many people here. Liberals here have been bitching about 'American Imperialism'', for a very long time.

Folks like me think G.W. could have gone Marshall Plan style after Iraq (even though the extremists make that a pain). We didn't have enough soldiers to get the job done and provide security. Policy makers screwed up when they left a great deal of ex- Iraqi vets of the Sunni persuasion, out of everything. Government infighting creates headaches all around.

We haven't had a real enemy since the SU during the cold war and yet defense spending is still high. People are still employed, manufacturing gear that is both offensive and defensive.

Freedoms haven't really been reduced at all, I would know being a U.S. citizen. Patriot Act wording was vague but the only Americans getting treated like terrorists were, terrorists. People aren't being black bagged in the night and driven to secret rendition sites en mass ALA actual totalitarian dictatorships.

The bullshit in the ME has always been a proxy fight from the very start. You have regional powers being supported by bigger powers, with the end goal of hegemony, wealth, and power. It is definitely not rocket science or a vast conspiracy theory.

If anything, every big player WANTS stability. Stability means more money. Stability means no terrorists. Stability means a stronger government/military. Instability just fucks all that up.

The PROBLEM is, the big powers want a STABLE government that is friendly to THEM. Thus the reason for the incessant fighting. Thus all the shit going on right now.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, definetly not, not as long as some nations run around and bombing the shit out of everyone when ever they feel like.

See, this is one thing I always have a serious problem with. When ever it is about the middle east, it's this kind of unspecified and vague danger that they pose. However, when you think about it strictly from a military and economical point of view, then it is Europe (France, Britain, Germany) and the US that actually have not only the capability to strike at any time, without a warning, and at literaly every target, but they also did it in the past.
Imagine what would happen if Assad would drop a bomb on Berlin with his jet fighters. He would not even get that far, but just imagine for a moment the Iran would do to Britain what they did to Iraq. If they had planes that could get undected to London, droping some bombs, killing 3 or 4 thousand civilians. We would destroy them with all our forces. That simple.
But this is the kind of behaviour both Europe and the US display right now. And this is what people in Iran, Syriah, Lebanon etc. see most of the time. We can talk about stability, security, liberation all we want, as long we are accidentally or not, droping bombs from drone strikes on civilians, people will never see it as that. And I wouldn't either.

Not to get off topic but why don't you think the Gulf War was necessary?

From which point of view. I don't think it was necessary. But you might get a different answer from Kissinger and Bush senior. And I am not responsible for the US foreign policiy.
I am not saying there is never a reason for war or conflicts. But I think that most of them are usually nedless.

 

[Throatpunch]

From which point of view. I don't think it was necessary. But you might get a different answer from Kissinger and Bush senior. And I am not responsible for the US foreign policiy.
I am not saying there is never a reason for war or conflicts. But I think that most of them are usually nedles

Why not?
It had the oil and its a foreign policy priority for every president to protect the oil. We need it for lubricants, guns, machinery, transport fuel, synthetics, asphalt, plastics.

Kissinger

Kissinger was not in government at the time (1991), and had nothing to do with the gulf war. Your getting mixed up with the 1970's

Imagine what would happen if Assad would drop a bomb on Berlin with his jet fighters. He would not even get that far, but just imagine for a moment the Iran would do to Britain what they did to Iraq. If they had planes that could get undected to London, droping some bombs, killing 3 or 4 thousand civilians. We would destroy them with all our forces. That simple.

Well we technically had suitable provocation and UN authorisation to do so, for them to do so would be illegal by UN laws. So no it would not be like what we did to Iraq.

 

[DarkCorp]

Crni,

You conveniently left out not only the big players, AKA Russia, but the regional players, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the various terror groups that already existed who want a piece of the pie. Or to get even more direct, Sunni VS Shia.

The reason people are dying is because the regional players and the big players who back them, are too busy fighting to install a government friendly to THEM. People are a secondary worry to the big three, hegemony, wealth and power.

AGAIN, it is not a secret. Crack open a history book and humanity has butchered one another for, hegemony, wealth and power.

It doesn't change the fact that a stable country, is still a much better option for whichever nation that it is FRIENDLY towards.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why not?
It had the oil and its a foreign policy priority for every president to protect the oil. We need it for lubricants, guns, machinery, transport fuel, synthetics, asphalt, plastics.

I never said I don't understand the motivations or reasoning that people like Bush and his supporters might have. But those are not necessarily reasons I agree with. Or would you personally kill 100 000 civilians to get cheaper access to oil?
The question is what ever if I think the war was necessary or not. And in my opinion, it simply wasn't. Obviously everyone can feel free to disagree. This isn't a right or wrong thing. I don't believe in moral anyway.

Kissinger was not in government at the time (1991), and had nothing to do with the gulf war. Your getting mixed up with the 1970's

His policy was still going strong. And what Bush senior and the ones that followed him did, isn't so far from the ideas Kissinger had.

You conveniently left out not only the big players, AKA Russia, but the regional players, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Or to get even more direct, Sunni VS Shia.

Yes, because I thought we are mainly talking about Iraq here and the last 15 years. Once we get to Syriah and more importantly Afghanistan, we can talk about the Soviets/Russians, which are not better or worse than the US. Same game, different players.

The reason people are dying is because the region players and the big players who back them, are too busy fighting to install a government friendly to THEM, people are a secondary worry to the big three, hegemony, wealth and power.

AGAIN, it is not a secret. Crack open a history book and humanity has butchered one another for, hegemony, wealth and power.

It doesn't change the fact that a stable country is better for whichever nation that it is FRIENDLY towards.

Then both the US and Europe have almost completely failed in all of their goals, if that was their intention with the last 10-15 years. Even if you agree with all the military actions that happend since 2001, objectively one must face the fact that the strategy and goals failed, hard. At least if you consider the recent events where pretty much the only stable nation left in the midle east, is Iran. Which, funnily enough, was neither bombed nor otherwise politicaly manipulated by the west in recent years.
Several 100 000 people died since 2001, the nations are left in a bigger chaos than before, and there is no sign that we will see democratic and stable nations in the near future. But ... Saddam is gone ... I guess.

 

[Throatpunch]

His policy was still going strong. And what Bush senior and the ones that followed him did, isn't so far from the ideas Kissinger had.

That is a made up quotation that emerged from the Daily Squib news sites satire section.
I thought that was obvious since it say's "fake quote - made up quotation or falsely attributed" on the picture.

Or would you personally kill 100 000 civilians to get cheaper access to oil?

What evidence do you have that 100,000 civilians were killed in the 1st Gulf War?

Fighting terrorists only create more 'terrorists...'

So are we supposed to sit back and let them kill us because it might create another terrorist?

 

[Crni Vuk]

That is a made up quotation that emerged from the Daily Squib news sites satire section.
I thought that was obvious since it say's "fake quote - made up quotation or falsely attributed" on the picture.

That's why I edited my post. Still, the point isn't what ever if Kissinger made that quote or not. It's the policy as a whole, which has been outlined since Reagan, and is one way or another still applied to the middle east - "War is the continuation of politics by other means." where as at least Germany has more this idea of Ultima Ratio. If ever.
Again, Kissinger, Reagan, Bush Senior. They players come and go, but the game stays the same.

What evidence do you have that 100,000 civilians were killed in the 1st Gulf War?

I was refering to all of the kills since the 1st Gulf War till now. Should have been more clear about that. It's the policy as whole I question. Does it matter if it was 5 000, 10 000 or 100 000? It's simply not justifable for me. Where would you draw the line. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of 5 000 people for 10 cent cheaper oil, or would you think that someone becomes a sociopath only at 50 000.
Still we are just slaping numbers around. The bottom line is the question, was all that happend since the early 1990s worth it in the end. And I think every sane person has to ask themself that. If even Mc Namara can admit HIS mistakes, like Vietnam - See fog of War, why shouldn't others? To admit mistakes and wrong choices, doesn't mean you're weak or something.

So are we supposed to sit back and let them kill us because it might create another terrorist?

Yeah, actually if you put it this way, this would be one way to deal with terrorism. Do you put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it? I am not saying there would be an efficient way to deal with it, or that this would be always the correct way. But to counter terrorism with strictly military operations, is somewhat of a problem. You can not apply traditional military strategies to issues that have ties into political and economical issues. You can only target nations, military installations, equipment and people. Not ideas or beliefs. You can not drop bombs on a concept or ideology like religion/fanatism. Hence why pretty much most of what we did for the last 15-20 years was largely ineffective and made matters actually worse. Becuse there is no clear frontline to follow here. And now a lot of it comes back to bite us - See Brussel, Paris and well the twin towers of 9.11. To believe our actions would not have long lasting consequences would be pretty naive and dangerous.
I always wonder why Germany is usually not a target for terrorism, at least not of this kind. Maybe because they don't fuck so much religion? And we don't bomb the shit out of others. We sure have our fare share of issues, but something like Paris? Or 9.11? Not really. Germay was forced to sit tight for the last 60 years when it come to foreign policy, military operations and all that. And it shows.

We have sadly a very short memory when it comes to those things though. I mean who would have ever thought, that the people the US has been best buddies with as long it was about fighting the Soviets, would eventually attack them in the future, right? Since when have religious fanatics ever been known for doing something irrational!. And all because they take it as affront that US/coalition troops are permanently deployed in places which are considered sacred by some muslims.

Again, this is important, I am not saying that a nation should fall in to some kind of apathy. However, when it comes to something as delicate like foreign policy and terrorism, one has to ask questions. Like, is what we do even efficient? Are we improving the situation for the future? How can we avoid terrorism before it even starts. Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan or Iraq, was if anything, just short term solutions to a much larger and highly complex issue. I don't have a solution, and I would say probably no one has, not one that could be applied tomorrow and everyone will be happy. But I feel that all those conflicts we saw since the 1990s, have just made matters worse, and actually started a lot of this terrorism, we see today.

 

[Throatpunch]

I was refering to all of the kills since the 1st Gulf War till now. Should have been more clear about that. It's the policy as whole I question. Does it matter if it was 5 000, 10 000 or 100 000? It's simply not justifable for me. Where would you draw the line. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of 5 000 people for 10 cent cheaper oil, or would you think that someone becomes a sociopath only at 50 000.
Still we are just slaping numbers around. The bottom line is the question, was all that happend since the early 1990s worth it in the end. And I think every sane person has to ask themself that. If even Mc Namara can admit HIS mistakes, like Vietnam - See fog of War, why shouldn't others? To admit mistakes and wrong choices, doesn't mean you're weak or something.

I personally think the Gulf War was worth it; because of Sadddam throwing his weight around invading foreign countries, and how we now control the vital oil in Kuwait. Also, it was a massive showcase of American Military power and basically the knockout blow to the Soviets.

That's why I edited my post. Still, the point isn't what ever if Kissinger made that quote or not. It's the policy as a whole, which has been outlined since Reagan, and is one way or another still applied to the middle east - "War is the continuation of politics by other means." where as at least Germany has more this idea of Ultima Ratio. If ever.
Again, Kissinger, Reagan, Bush Senior. They players come and go, but the game stays the same.

You gotta admit the players are different, they all had totally different policies. For example: Reagan actually opposed detente, one of the most famous of Henry Kissinger's policies.

Yeah, actually if you put it this way, this would be one way to deal with terrorism. Do you put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it? I am not saying there would be an efficient way to deal with it, or that this would be always the correct way. But to counter terrorism with strictly military operations, is somewhat of a problem. You can not apply traditional military strategies to issues that have ties into political and economical issues. You can only target nations, military installations, equipment and people. Not ideas or beliefs. You can not drop bombs on a concept or ideology like religion/fanatism. Hence why pretty much most of what we did for the last 15-20 years was largely ineffective and made matters actually worse. Becuse there is no clear frontline to follow here. And now a lot of it comes back to bite us - See Brussel, Paris and well the twin towers of 9.11. To believe our actions would not have long lasting consequences would be pretty naive and dangerous.
I always wonder why Germany is usually not a target for terrorism, at least not of this kind. Maybe because they don't fuck so much religion? And we don't bomb the shit out of others. We sure have our fare share of issues, but something like Paris? Or 9.11? Not really. Germay was forced to sit tight for the last 60 years when it come to foreign policy, military operations and all that. And it shows.

We have sadly a very short memory when it comes to those things though. I mean who would have ever thought, that the people the US has been best buddies with as long it was about fighting the Soviets, would eventually attack them in the future, right? Since when have religious fanatics ever been known for doing something irrational!. And all because they take it as affront that US/coalition troops are permanently deployed in places which are considered sacred by some muslims.

Again, this is important, I am not saying that a nation should fall in to some kind of apathy. However, when it comes to something as delicate like foreign policy and terrorism, one has to ask questions. Like, is what we do even efficient? Are we improving the situation for the future? How can we avoid terrorism before it even starts. Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan or Iraq, was if anything, just short term solutions to a much larger and highly complex issue. I don't have a solution, and I would say probably no one has, not one that could be applied tomorrow and everyone will be happy. But I feel that all those conflicts we saw since the 1990s, have just made matters worse, and actually started a lot of this terrorism, we see today.

They dealt with the issue here:

and here:

and here too:

We needn't get overcomplicated about this. There is a very simple solution to this simple problem.
Kill the terrorists, and when more people join, kill them too.
We need to carpet bomb them into oblivion, and get boots on the ground in their territory.
Have you not noticed that after Britain, France and America started their bombing campaigns against ISIS we have seen no terrorist attacks. Libyan forces have just taken Sirte, and routed ISIS from one of their strongholds.
ISIS is collapsing rapidly, its about to become a non-entity, because of the bombing campaigns and the troops on the ground.

 

[MutantScalper]

Kissinger is still very much around, Hillary takes her foreign political cues from him. He should be arrested and tried for war crimes.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That's what I think as well. But you will never see any american politican or military personal in Den Haag.

I personally think the Gulf War was worth it; because of Sadddam throwing his weight around invading foreign countries, and how we now control the vital oil in Kuwait.

Who also received a lot of support by the US, just to become later a problem they had to deal with, one way or another. One might get the idea, that there is a pattern here ...
Anyway, I feel at this point we are just going in circles. But what always remains, is a lot of very weird questions, of why and how the US decides to intervene and with what motivation. And in the end, you either agree with those or you don't. I don't attack those that agree with it, it's at least honest. Self interest and such. You think it is alright to go around bullying smaller/weaker nations for resources? Well. That's somewhat normal. If Germany was a super power today, they would do the exact same.
What I don't like is bullshiting. And I always feel like this, we had to stop Saddam because of the Kurds/human rights etc. is one of the biggest bullshit ever. Because honestly, deep down we know that no president, not even Obama, cares one inch about how, why or where human rights are violeted. I am sure they think it's a tragedy, but hell, I find it a tragedy as well, doesn't make me stop buying Pepsi or eating at Mc Donalds. All kind of shit happens all around the world, even right now, in a lot of places, and yet you will never see a US presence there. Central Africa, Sudan, some of the worst regimes you can imagine. But unless there is something they could gain from it, you will not see Europe or the US do anything really.

 

[zegh8578]

War criminals tried for war crimes is the exception rather than the rule

One of the things that get to me are "shelf lives" of war-news, take Sudan, Darfur to be specific. It was big in the news when it was new, and then it was less new, and more boring, and now it's "old news"

This means that the "Janjaweed" can - will - and do operate with utter impunity. It's not a matter of "if we don't react, then - " no, these people have been massacring black tribes in the Darfur, for years and years - it's a daily routine for them - it's their job and their life. Imagine that... in this world, there are places where people get up in the morning, get in a Toyota with their buddies, load their AKs, and drive out into the desert looking out for groups of people to massacre or chase off. It sounds medieval, but it is perfectly normal (because normal is what happens on a routine basis) and perfectly modern (they use cars and fire-arms)

Another "favorite" situation of mine is the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, where groups of warriors - for the lack of a more specific description - roamed streets systematically killing every Georgian they could find. The only ones who weren't killed were the ones who fled, or the very luckiest individuals. Nobody intervened, nobody came to save them, nobody did anything - except the heavily armed, uniformed pogroms, who ended up rounding hundreds of civilians into a sports-stadium (can you imagine the fear?) for then to be massacred with machineguns and hand-grenades for the hours it took to kill every last one.
Oh, and this was in the 90s. The Darfur massacres happen to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia

And, it goes without saying, that any atrocity you can think of - happens. Gouging someones eyes out? Happens. Making them eat said eye? Happens. Making them rape each others, while eating gouged out eyes? Happens. Anything else you can think of? Happens. If you can think of it, it happens.

 

[Atomkilla]

One of the things that get to me are "shelf lives" of war-news, take Sudan, Darfur to be specific. It was big in the news when it was new, and then it was less new, and more boring, and now it's "old news"

Fuck it man, I didn't even know about the War in Darfur.
Fuck.

 

[SuAside]

yeah, the atomic explosion in hiroshima is also visual wonder.

I recommend 100 suns, the only picture book I own.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

We needn't get overcomplicated about this. There is a very simple solution to this simple problem.
Kill the terrorists, and when more people join, kill them too.
We need to carpet bomb them into oblivion, and get boots on the ground in their territory.

The simple strategy is what caused the conflict in Mashriq in the first place. It's what effectively keeps the world in a state of perpetual warfare, and 99 times out of 100 doesn't solve the conflict.

Organized violence has solved few social problems this world has faced. Rather, it has prolonged them and started them.

 

[Ilosar]

We needn't get overcomplicated about this. There is a very simple solution to this simple problem.
Kill the terrorists, and when more people join, kill them too.
We need to carpet bomb them into oblivion, and get boots on the ground in their territory.

The simple strategy is what caused the conflict in Mashriq in the first place. It's what effectively keeps the world in a state of perpetual warfare, and 99 times out of 100 doesn't solve the conflict.

Organized violence has solved few social problems this world has faced. Rather, it has prolonged them and started them.

Very true. Thinking you can wash the blood away with more blood is exactly what led us into this very situation.

 

[Earth]

War on Drugs and War on Terror. Two never-ending wars that can never be won with violence.

Reminds me of the wars in Nineteen Eighty-Four...

Anyway. That was off-topic. Just my two cents.

I always find it a little weird that Fallout fans could be pro-war. I dunno, maybe the anti-war message in Fallout was just something I took away from it. Might just be me. Its anti-nuclear weapons message is the more obvious point being made by the series.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's not that far away from the reality though.

• Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
  Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
  Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In that sense, keeping a kind of danger around, can actually be a good thing for a state or well, their leadership to be more clear. That's of course a very broad generalisation. But I hope you get the picture. It's simply very easy to shut up criticism or to avoid domestic policy, when you have this big and evil threat on the horizon, which has to be dealt with of course. In the past it was the Communist Regime, today it's simply Islam.