What a Pity Iraq's Sovereignity was Violated!

[Skeptic]

Newsweek declares victory (http://www.nationalreview.com/) as hundreds of Kurdish children's graves are uncovered (http://www.hrtribune.net/View.aspx?id=187).

[Undesired Walrus]

But I thought this was a war to remove Hussein because of his threat to the rest of the region and the West, not a war to prevent genocide?

North Korea's slave labour camps undoubtably have plenty of mass graves, and Rwanda's fields were once littered with the bodies of 800,000 Tutsis. Those ugly facts aren't usually enough to warrant military intervention though.

It seems the supporters of this war need to make up their mind what it was about.

[psychictv]

Yeah, good thing we invaded and stopped that from happening. I mean, what kind of president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) would stand by and do nothing to stop such genocide?

[fullflavormenthol]

Good thing the original reason was to find all those WMD's (http://tylerlong.org/pages/www.smashingpumpkins.com) that we knew Saddam had.

[OneShotKi11]

Iraq is Obamas biggest achievement? Im new to politics and such, but wasnt this all Bushes doing?

Why is Obama getting credit?

[Eddie Dane]

OK, this was going on when the US was still using Saddam as a counter-force against Iran.

But I still find this an interesting fact.

What's the legal definition of genocide? Because this looks like the Kurds were the victims of exactly that.

[ponderingturtle]

Newsweek declares victory (http://www.nationalreview.com/) as hundreds of Kurdish children's graves are uncovered (http://www.hrtribune.net/View.aspx?id=187).

Why do we care now? He was our ally after all when he did the killing?

Have fun with the hypocrisy.

[daenku32]

Why do we care now? He was our ally after all when he did the killing?

Have fun with the hypocrisy.

And why wasn't this taken care off the first time we went there?

[Pardalis]

North Korea's slave labour camps undoubtably have plenty of mass graves, and Rwanda's fields were once littered with the bodies of 800,000 Tutsis. Those ugly facts aren't usually enough to warrant military intervention though.

So you decide to give up?

[lomiller]

Calling a few hundred dead genocide makes about as much sense as calling a diaper bomb a weapon of mass destruction. These concepts exist not to describe terrible things, but to describe terrible things taken to an almost inconcievable scale and watering them down for political purposes is a disservice to everyone.

[Eddie Dane]

Calling a few hundred dead genocide makes about as much sense as calling a diaper bomb a weapon of mass destruction. These concepts exist not to describe terrible things, but to describe terrible things taken to an almost inconcievable scale and watering them down for political purposes is a disservice to everyone.

Hence my question: what is the legal definition of genocide?

Is it in the intent to eradicate a people, in the numbers killed, in the percentage killed, or what?

This mass grave is not the whole story of what happened. And mass graves full of children are an indication of something very bad indeed.

[ponderingturtle]

Hence my question: what is the legal definition of genocide?

Is it in the intent to eradicate a people, in the numbers killed, in the percentage killed, or what?

This mass grave is not the whole story of what happened. And mass graves full of children are an indication of something very bad indeed.

Sure, but they are also not especially uncommon. If we decided to invade every country 20 years after they killed a whole bunch of children we are going to need a much larger military. We need to start preparing for the invasion of Rwanda for one.

[Pardalis]

So we just sit there and do nothing, and say "that's a shame".

[ponderingturtle]

So we just sit there and do nothing, and say "that's a shame".

It is what we did at the time they were killing the kids in Iraq. And it is not at all what was being claimed as our motive to go into Iraq when the war started. It was just when all the claims made fell through they fell back on the crimes that were committed when Iraq was our Ally.

At the time I would have much preferred a more morally based argument, but that isn't the one that was made then. Now I am not so convinced that outside intervention can help. We certainly bungled the job of it seriously in Iraq.

[Cleon]

So we just sat there and did nothing, and said "that's a shame".

Fixed that for you. Reality is, during the Iran-Iraq war--when Saddam was committing these crimes--the West regarded Saddam as the good guy.

[quixotecoyote]

Sure, but they are also not especially uncommon. If we decided to invade every country 20 years after they killed a whole bunch of children we are going to need a much larger military. We need to start preparing for the invasion of Rwanda for one.

Yeah. It's especially scummy when our ally fills mass graves with children and we don't do anything (or actively assist him against the rebels), then when it's politically convenient to invade under a pretense that collapsed easily, we point to those killings as if they were the real reason.

If that's how people want the US to run, as the military savior of the world, I wouldn't have a particular problem with that. It would take a different approach. It would need to be a more post-WWII Japan thing where we full-out occupy/control/rule the nation until we build a stable society and leave. That might take more time and troops for some societies than the fiveish years and 350,000+ troops it took for Japan, but I can see it as possible.

But, that's not how we've been operating, that's not how we're operating now, there's no plans to operate that way in the future, and it's dishonest to pretend that we're actually interested in saving countries from bloodshed and oppression when that is neither the actual reasons for our actions or reflected in our style of actions.

[Pardalis]

It is what we did at the time they were killing the kids in Iraq.
Fixed that for you. Reality is, during the Iran-Iraq war--when Saddam was committing these crimes--the West regarded Saddam as the good guy.

So that's a valid reason to keep not doing anything?

We were wrong in the past, so according to you we should keep doing the same?

For once the US did the right thing, and you keep whining?

[Cleon]

So that's a valid reason to keep not doing anything?

We were wrong in the past, so according to you we should keep doing the same?

For once the US did the right thing, and you keep whining?

What utter and complete nonsense.

The killing of children was not the reason the US invaded Iraq, whether 20 years in the past or 20 days in the past. Bringing it up as a post-hoc justification of the invasion is nothing more than a dishonest rewriting of history. The fact that the US was aiding and abetting Hussein while he was committing these crimes is proof of this.

The only one whining here is, well, you.

[Pardalis]

What utter and complete nonsense.

The killing of children was not the reason the US invaded Iraq, whether 20 years in the past or 20 days in the past. Bringing it up as a post-hoc justification of the invasion is nothing more than a dishonest rewriting of history. The fact that the US was aiding and abetting Hussein while he was committing these crimes is proof of this.

The only one whining here is, well, you.

At the end of the day, Bush was the one who snuffed out the Hussein plague. You can't stand that.

[quixotecoyote]

At the end of the day, Bush was the one who snuffed out the Hussein plague. You can't stand that.


Mindreading, topic change, previously defeated arguments not acknowledged.

ehh

B+ for partisanship

F for skepticism

[Pardalis]

So what if the US was complicit in Hussein's regime in the early eighties (among other countries such as France, BTW).

How does that affect that the US was right in defeating him in 2003?

[Cleon]

At the end of the day, Bush was the one who snuffed out the Hussein plague. You can't stand that.

Well, I'm sure that was extremely self-satisfying for you to post, it doesn't actually address anything I said.

[Pardalis]

Tell me Cleon, were Hussein's "containment" and sanctions against his people working?

[ponderingturtle]

So that's a valid reason to keep not doing anything?


And why did we go there instead of somewhere that the killing was still going on and we could actually save some kids?

For once the US did the right thing, and you keep whining?

If we wanted to do the right thing we would have gone into Darfur. But we decided to play the same old games about when something is or is not genocide there, and make up some BS claim about Iraq instead.

[quixotecoyote]

So what if the US was complicit in Hussein's regime in the early eighties (among other countries such as France, BTW).

How does that affect that the US was right in defeating him in 2003?

Assuming the conclusion, leading question.

Because we attacked for ******** reasons using methods meant to defeat an enemy rather than rebuild a society as we would have were humanitarian reasons really our motivation.

Because the target choice was especially questionable if that was our motivation, as there are plenty of places we could have made more a difference.

Because we still can't make people like you assess the actions honestly without boatloads of political weaseling, which makes you stating that the actions were 'right' lack any credibility.

[Cleon]

So what if the US was complicit in Hussein's regime in the early eighties (among other countries such as France, BTW).

How does that affect that the US was right in defeating him in 2003?

Well, if you'll notice carefully, the OP brings up the crimes Hussein committed while being backed by the US as a post-hoc justification for the invasion.

Which is ridiculous and dishonest.

[ponderingturtle]

At the end of the day, Bush was the one who snuffed out the Hussein plague. You can't stand that.

Sure we spend a lot of money for revenge for people he killed when he was Bush's daddies buddy. Why not spend it to actually prevent present crimes against humanity instead of taking vengeance for ones long in the past?

[Cleon]

Tell me Cleon, were Hussein's "containment" and sanctions against his people working?

Once again, another post that doesn't address anything I said.

[Upchurch]

For once the US did the right thing, and you keep whining?
Ah, the naivete of black and white thinking.

There is some really awful :rule10 going on around the world all the time. There is an perfectly valid argument to be made for intervening in any of those. (and a valid argument for not) It is not simply an issue of "doing the right thing" but also understanding that "the right thing" is deeply contextual and subjective. From our own national interests, the US's invasion of Iraq stirred up a huge hornets nest and broke a tenuous balance of powers during a time when we very much needed cooperation (or at least not direct resistance) in going after Al Qaeda.

Remember them?

[Pardalis]

Assuming the conclusion, leading question.

Because we attacked for ******** reasons using methods meant to defeat an enemy rather than rebuild a society as we would have were humanitarian reasons really our motivation.

Of course the US had to defeat the Hussein regime first, how could it have done it otherwise?

And are you saying the US isn't helping rebuilding Iraq? US troops haven't rebuilt roads, schools, electrical and water infrastructures? Where are all the trillions of dollars going to, do you think? What do all those contractors doing in Iraq right now?

[Pardalis]

Al Qaeda.

Remember them?

Yes, they were wreaking havoc in Iraq for a while. They're being defeated by your countrymen as we speak.

[quixotecoyote]

Of course the US had to defeat the Hussein regime first, how could it have done it otherwise?

And are you saying the US isn't helping rebuilding Iraq? US troops haven't rebuilt roads, schools, electrical and water infrastructures? Were are all the trillions of dollars going to, do you think?

Hint:

If you start a post with "So, you're really saying," "So, you think," or "Are you saying" it should make you doublecheck to see if you're strawmanning by putting words in other peoples mouths.

I was clear earlier about what I meant by building a stable society and what it would take and why our actual actions are incompatible with the idea that we really cared about creating a stable (eta: and non-oppressive) Iraq.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, they were wreaking havoc in Iraq for a while. They're being defeated by your countrymen as we speak.

At best equivocation.

At worst straight lying.

Can you do better, or you gunning to be the concise version of BaC?

[Pardalis]

Where's the lie?

[Pardalis]

Hint:

If you start a post with "So, you're really saying," "So, you think," or "Are you saying" it should make you doublecheck to see if you're strawmanning by putting words in other peoples mouths.

I was clear earlier about what I meant by building a stable society and what it would take and why our actual actions are incompatible with the idea that we really cared about creating a stable (eta: and non-oppressive) Iraq.

Ah, got it. Sorry if I misread you. But isn't "snuffing out the dictator" the first major hurdle in acquiring some kind of peace and stability?

The US took care of that part, the part the Iraqis couldn't handle themselves, and the rest is to the Iraqis to govern themselves, which they are, now.

ETA: Although I can't say I'm in favor of reinstating former Baath members in the government.

[Cleon]

Yes, they were wreaking havoc in Iraq for a while. They're being defeated by your countrymen as we speak.

Of course, they weren't wreaking havoc in Iraq until after the US invaded.

If it was such a slam-dunk case to invade Iraq, I wonder why the war's defenders need to rely on dishonest post-hoc justifications to support it.

[Pardalis]

If it was such a slam-dunk case to invade Iraq, I wonder why the war's defenders need to rely on dishonest post-hoc justifications to support it.

I never said AQ was the reason to go in Iraq, I was just responding to Upchurch.

[quixotecoyote]

Where's the lie?

Depends if you're equivocating Al Qaeda with Al Qaeda in Iraq, or just lying about Al Qaeda being sheltered and active in Iraq pre-invasion.

Your intentional ambiguity makes it difficult to discern.

[Pardalis]

I wasn't the one who brought Al Qaeda into this.

ETA: about AQ, they're one of the reasons Iraq hasn't gained stability and peace, BTW. If it wasn't for them stirring up hatred over there, Iraq would have been better off.

[quixotecoyote]

I wasn't the one who brought Al Qaeda into this.

Yes, Upchurch said that invading Iraq took forces away from the battle against Al Qaeda, which in context meant could only have referred to Afghanistan.

[Newtons Bit]

There were a large number of reasons why the US declared war on Iraq. WMD was just the most vocal reason. Please see the Iraq War Resolution (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf).


Here's one of many:
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[NoScotsman]

Sadly, moral arguments never win the day re: military intervention. It's a chess game pure and simple and emotions never enter into it ... until AFTER the atrocities have already happened (in the form of disaster relief).

The Iraq War was costly and ill-conceived, but I dare say some good has come of it. The case for the war was far shakier, however, than, say, Rwanda--where our lack of military involvement was utterly inexcusable.

[Pardalis]

Yes, Upchurch said that invading Iraq took forces away from the battle against Al Qaeda, which in context meant could only have referred to Afghanistan.

You and Upchurch may be right, as I've said before, the decision to go in Iraq was done in haste, and without enough consideration, the US should have waited to have a better plan and to have the world's support. But in the long run, somekind of military intervention in Iraq had to happen, maybe a few years down the line, but it was inevitable.

[quixotecoyote]

There were a large number of reasons why the US declared war on Iraq. WMD was just the most vocal reason. Please see the Iraq War Resolution (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf).


Here's one of many:

I'm aware they threw in the kitchen sink in that resolution.

There's these officially stated reasons, the actually defended/publicized reasons, and the real reasons.

I don't waste too much thought on the first.

[Cleon]

I never said AQ was the reason to go in Iraq, I was just responding to Upchurch.

...Who was pointing out that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al-Qaeda. You, of course, trimmed his entire post to the phrase "Al-Qaeda," and said they'd been "wreaking havoc" in Iraq "for a while."

You can pretend there's no context to your statement, but unfortunately it's still there for all to see.

[Cleon]

You and Upchurch may be right, as I've said before, the decision to go in Iraq was done in haste, and without enough consideration, the US should have waited to have a better plan and to have the world's support. But in the long run, somekind of military intervention in Iraq had to happen, maybe a few years down the line, but it was inevitable.

If that's the case, why the reliance on dishonesty to justify it?

[Checkmite]

Bringing it up as a post-hoc justification of the invasion is nothing more than a dishonest rewriting of history.

Completely true. However, I see no fault in uncovering such a find and saying, "Well, it just so happens we managed to do something good after all."

[Pardalis]

If that's the case, why the reliance on dishonesty to justify it?

I'm not sure i understand your question, but I think I agree with you that the administration's justification was gobbled up together in haste, and that they should have waited to have a better case (which they would have had anyway), but for political reasons (they were approaching the end of their term) and meteorological considerations (sand storm season coming in), they rushed it.

[quixotecoyote]

You and Upchurch may be right, as I've said before, the decision to go in Iraq was done in haste, and without enough consideration, the US should have waited to have a better plan and to have the world's support. But in the long run, somekind of military intervention in Iraq had to happen, maybe a few years down the line, but it was inevitable.


I doubt it. There's plenty of ********* around the world where I doubt we'll ever intervene.

But leaving that aside, I think the goal was to overthrow a dictator, not to build a stable, non-oppressive nation:



Bush:I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our and it's in our when it's in our best interests.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/11/politics/main240442.shtml

We were tied up in Afghanistan. Public support was divided on that. There wasn't any way that we were going to throw enough resources at Iraq to rebuild the nation right. That was obvious.

We did it anyway. Now, I'm not saying we aren't rebuilding schools and handing out food. I'm saying that if you want to move from an oppressive dictatorship to anything resembling a free democracy, it's going to be a long-term ground-up rebuild needing at least twice the troops we ever had over there and more money than we had.

This doesn't seem like an operation out to pull a post-war Japan transformation. It looks like an action to smack down an enemy government based on a threat assessment followed by a CYA approach with an ad-hoc nation-building justification when it turns out the threat was manufactured.

[NoScotsman]

There were a large number of reasons why the US declared war on Iraq. WMD was just the most vocal reason.


Tread carefully when dealing with the "Fallacy of the single cause crowd." They can only consider one idea at a time.

[quixotecoyote]

Completely true. However, I see no fault in uncovering such a find and saying, "Well, it just so happens we managed to do something good after all."

But this wasn't something we stopped, this was something we were complicit in.

If they dug out mass graves from 2002, you could say "Well, it just so happens we managed to do something good after all."

These are from 1980.

eta: I'll go a step further. We DID manage to do something good. Unseating a dictator is, all other things being equal, a good thing. However, when compared to the bad stuff, the stuff we could have done, and the stuff we allowed to happen, not only is this not a winning scorecard, but finding these bodies reminds us of the points against us when we were enabling these actions.

[Newtons Bit]

I'm aware they threw in the kitchen sink in that resolution.

There's these officially stated reasons, the actually defended/publicized reasons, and the real reasons.

I don't waste too much thought on the first.

So, if a reason was in one of George Bush's State of the Union addressed you would qualify it as one of the defended/publicized reasons?

2002: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/)
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

2003: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/)
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

WMD was the most vocalized reason. It was not the only vocalized reason.

[quixotecoyote]

So, if a reason was in one of George Bush's State of the Union addressed you would qualify it as one of the defended/publicized reasons?

2002: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/)


2003: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/)


WMD was the most vocalized reason. It was not the only vocalized reason.

Are you sure you want to defend those quotes?

[Pardalis]

I doubt it. There's plenty of ********* around the world where I doubt we'll ever intervene.

But you got to admit this particular region is of particular interest. We have one less dangerous dictator over there to contend with.

But leaving that aside, I think the goal was to overthrow a dictator, not to build a stable, non-oppressive nation:You may be right, but one goes with the other I think. At least now the Iraqis have a shot at a free state, before it was a distant dream.

We were tied up in Afghanistan. Public support was divided on that. There wasn't any way that we were going to throw enough resources at Iraq to rebuild the nation right. That was obvious.

We did it anyway. Now, I'm not saying we aren't rebuilding schools and handing out food. I'm saying that if you want to move from an oppressive dictatorship to anything resembling a free democracy, it's going to be a long-term ground-up rebuild needing at least twice the troops we ever had over there and more money than we had.

This doesn't seem like an operation out to pull a post-war Japan transformation. It looks like an action to smack down an enemy government based on a threat assessment followed by a CYA approach with an ad-hoc nation-building justification when it turns out the threat was manufactured.I mostly agree, except the last part. Hussein was a threat to the region, in one way or the other. He couldn't have been "contained" for very long, and the sanctions were only hurting the people.

[quixotecoyote]

But you got to admit this particular region is of particular interest. We have one less dangerous dictator over there to contend with.

You may be right, but one goes with the other I think. At least now the Iraqis have a shot at a free state, before it was a distant dream.

I mostly agree, except the last part. Hussein was a threat to the region, in one way or the other. He couldn't have been "contained" for very long, and the sanctions were only hurting the people.

I also mostly agree, except the last part. It didn't seem like Hussein was much of a threat, although I agree the sanctions were problematic.

[Pardalis]

Slowly chipping away at our disagreement, we must be doing something right. ;)

[Checkmite]

eta: I'll go a step further. We DID manage to do something good. Unseating a dictator is, all other things being equal, a good thing. However, when compared to the bad stuff, the stuff we could have done, and the stuff we allowed to happen, not only is this not a winning scorecard, but finding these bodies reminds us of the points against us when we were enabling these actions.

We do not have a time machine. We don't know whether it was known in 1980 that someone had dug a mass grave and was filling it with kids. All we have is the knowledge (unless you're some conspiracy loon) that the people who were in charge 30 years ago here are not the same ones in charge today; and that today "we" were not in any way complicit. "Woulda coulda shoulda" in no way changes the fact that Saddam's ouster was nothing but a good thing.

[Newtons Bit]

Are you sure you want to defend those quotes?

Huh?

They're from the SOTU addresses, aren't they? CNN didn't fake the transcripts, right? And they are examples of perceived "brutal repression", to use language from the Resolution, right?

[quixotecoyote]

Huh?

They're from the SOTU addresses, aren't they? CNN didn't fake the transcripts, right? And they are examples of perceived "brutal repression", to use language from the Resolution, right?

Well the first one is talking about gassing the Kurds and the WMDs, which I've already described the problems with.

The second one is darkly amusing if you're setting this up as a war to end torture, rather than as a war to prefer milder forms of torture.

[psychictv]

All we have is the knowledge (unless you're some conspiracy loon) that the people who were in charge 30 years ago here are not the same ones in charge today;

Huh? You have to be a "conspiracy loon" to see that many of the same players were involved in the Reagan, Bush 1, & Bush 2 administrations?

[quixotecoyote]

We do not have a time machine. We don't know whether it was known in 1980 that someone had dug a mass grave
and was filling it with kids.

Given that we were actively aiding him against rebel factions, I figure we knew the generalities if not the details.


"Woulda coulda shoulda" in no way changes the fact that Saddam's ouster was nothing but a good thing.Goalpost move.

Previously you were arguing that finding these bodies demonstrates what a good thing we did.

Now you're arguing that Saddam's ouster was a good thing.

These are different arguments.

[Newtons Bit]

Well the first one is talking about gassing the Kurds and the WMDs, which I've already described the problems with.

The second one is darkly amusing if you're setting this up as a war to end torture, rather than as a war to prefer milder forms of torture.

You're not addressing the point: The US gave, and publicized/defended, reasons other than WMD for invading Iraq. It doesn't if the US is hypocritical on those reasons.

[Pardalis]

Well the first one is talking about gassing the Kurds and the WMDs, which I've already described the problems with.

The second one is darkly amusing if you're setting this up as a war to end torture, rather than as a war to prefer milder forms of torture.

But compound all those reasons together, and the others not mentioned (like his refusal allow UN inspectors and divulge where he left his stockpiles), doesn't it justify concerns about the regime, and what it might have done if left alone?

[lomiller]

Ah, got it. Sorry if I misread you. But isn't "snuffing out the dictator" the first major hurdle in acquiring some kind of peace and stability?

The US took care of that part, the part the Iraqis couldn't handle themselves, and the rest is to the Iraqis to govern themselves, which they are, now.

“Snuffing out a dictator” is not a valid reason to invade any country in fact it’s specifically illegal under international law.

While it may seem like a good idea no outside nation has the authority to decide if someone is a dictator or not, nor does any outside country get to decide how a country treats it’s own citizens. The lone exception to this is the case of an ongoing genocide which doesn’t just permit an invasion it *requires* it.

As bad as the things Iraq was doing in the late 80’s it is still unlikely to have qualified as a genocide. Even if it did intervention is only justified to stop said genocide, invading 20 years after the fact simply doesn’t qualify.

[quixotecoyote]

You're not addressing the point: The US gave, and publicized/defended, reasons other than WMD for invading Iraq. It doesn't if the US is hypocritical on those reasons.

I remember hearing the most about WMD's as the reason we had to go to war and go to war now. I remember hearing lots of Iraq=evil stuff as well, but it didn't seem to be the argument for an attack.

Now that's just perception and it's all I'm claiming it to be.

I acknowledge that the Bush admin tried out a bunch of justifications to see which ones would stick. I don't think they every ran with occupying Iraq and transforming it into a healthy society, but I could be wrong.

[quixotecoyote]

But compound all those reasons together, and the others not mentioned (like his refusal allow UN inspectors and divulge where he left his stockpiles), doesn't it justify concerns about the regime, and what it might have done if left alone?

Piling together a bunch of problematic justifications doesn't make the resulting pile any less problematic.

Also, IIRC, the UN inspectors were coming out against Saddam as a threat.

[Checkmite]

Huh? You have to be a "conspiracy loon" to see that many of the same players were involved in the Reagan, Bush 1, & Bush 2 administrations?

Today is March 3, 2010. Bush has been out of office for more than a year.

[Pardalis]

Piling together a bunch of problematic justifications doesn't make the resulting pile any less problematic.

The pile was the justification, and the problem was Hussein.

You seem to keep wanting to have only one reason to invade. We say there were multiple reasons, all pointing to one problem.

[Checkmite]

Goalpost move.

Previously you were arguing that finding these bodies demonstrates what a good thing we did.

Now you're arguing that Saddam's ouster was a good thing.

These are different arguments.

Nuts. What "we did" was oust Saddam. You may argue that a particular president shouldn't get credit for his actions having the unintended consequence of bringing about the demise of a mass-child-killer when his stated purpose was something completely different (and ultimately misguided); but that doesn't change the fact that said mass-child-killer is now gone and not creating any more mass graves. That's the good thing to which I refer.

[quixotecoyote]

The pile was the justification, and the problem was Hussein.

You seem to keep wanting to have only one reason to invade. We say there were multiple reasons, all pointing to one problem.

I feel like you're verging on putting words in my mouth. Just because I point at the reasons given and say "********, that happened 20+ years ago," "********, the evidence for that is weak," "********, that could apply to dozens of nations," "********, they advised against invading," doesn't mean I'm saying there's only one reason.

[quixotecoyote]

Nuts. What "we did" was oust Saddam. You may argue that a particular president shouldn't get credit for his actions having the unintended consequence of bringing about the demise of a mass-child-killer when his stated purpose was something completely different (and ultimately misguided); but that doesn't change the fact that said mass-child-killer is now gone and not creating any more mass graves. That's the good thing to which I refer.

Now that you've switched to this argument, I agree with you.

eta: It may be petty, but I will add that I doubt you'll stop here.

[Skeptic]

First the USA cheated a crazed genocidal dictators, but I said nothing, because I wasn't a crazed genocidal dictator...

[Undesired Walrus]

So you decide to give up?

I think you misread my words. I was bringing up the fact that genocide has occured the world over in the last few decades, not just in Iraq. Whether we have a moral obligation to prevent them all was not the point of my argument.

The hypocrisy is grand, as the very people who have said that, terrible Hussein's domestic crimes were, they would be no justification to overthrow them, are the very same people who latch onto his domestic crimes as justification for intervention when they original argument falls away. A man in question who used such reasoning was Tony Blair, who said the following:

"I may find this regime abhorrent - any normal person would - but the survival of it is in his hands."

Here's what Blix has to say on the issue:
"The war was sold on the weapons of mass destruction, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he (Blair) said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up, and if the fig leaf had not been there, then they would have tried to put another fig leaf there."

If genocide was the issue, for what reason do we invade Iraq and not North Korea, or Rwanda?

Let me ask you this: Would you have supported intervention if Saddam and his sons had been guilty only of domestic crimes?

[Cleon]

First the USA cheated a crazed genocidal dictators, but I said nothing, because I wasn't a crazed genocidal dictator...

No.

First, the USA aided and abetted crazed genocidal dictators....

[Arcade22]

Sending US soldiers to die because of the fact that the Arabs are acting like savages is a good thing?

[Undesired Walrus]

As much as we disagree, it's always helpful to have someone like Arcade or MaGZ to show how much we have in common in contrast to them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

First the USA cheated a crazed genocidal dictators, but I said nothing, because I wasn't a crazed genocidal dictator...
No.

First, the USA aided and abetted crazed genocidal dictators....

Perhaps more accurately:

The U.S.A. created and armed a crazed genocidal dictator.

[ANTPogo]

We do not have a time machine. We don't know whether it was known in 1980 that someone had dug a mass grave and was filling it with kids. All we have is the knowledge (unless you're some conspiracy loon) that the people who were in charge 30 years ago here are not the same ones in charge today; and that today "we" were not in any way complicit. "Woulda coulda shoulda" in no way changes the fact that Saddam's ouster was nothing but a good thing.

In 1988, Saddam gassed the Kurdish village of Halabjah. At the time, George H. W. Bush was vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld was a special envoy to the middle east (who had brought gifts to Saddam during a visit in 1983 - the same year Saddam first gassed his own people), and Dick Cheney was the leading Republican congressman in the House of Representatives. The US government did nothing about the genocidal attack, and in fact went to some effort to minimize Saddam's role (even instructing its diplomats to blame Iran for the attack, knowing full well it was Iraqi planes that dropped the gas).

One year later, in 1989, George H. W. Bush was vice president, Donald Rumsfeld had bragged about restoring full US relations with Iraq, and Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The US government still did nothing at all about Saddam's murderous actions - Bush even issued a directive saying that a full relationship with and support for Saddam's Iraq was important to US interests in the region.

Fourteen years later, Bush's son was president, Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was vice-president. And, mysteriously, Saddam's actions from back in 1988 (which all those men had known about and/or gone to some pains to ignore so the US' relationship with Iraq could be restored and maintained), suddenly were so bad and terrible that we had to invade Iraq and overthrow the mad genocidal tyrant Saddam.

In short: when Saddam gassed his own people (repeatedly), the same men who considered that an invading offense in 2003 not only knew about it, but minimized it at the very time it happened. So forgive me if I look with a skeptical eye at the use of that as a justification for war.

[Skeptic]

As much as we disagree, it's always helpful to have someone like Arcade or MaGZ to show how much we have in common in contrast to them.

MAD magazine said it best: People like MaGZ and Arcade22 hate Jews... they think they are all commies... who should be sent to Israel... so that MaGZ and Arcade22 can sit back and root for the Arabs... who are the #1 allies of... the USSR???????????????????????

[Skeptic]

Yes. The US had some nasty allies -- such as Saddam -- against even nastier enemies, such as Iran's Mullahs.

How this makes the removal of Saddam wrong, however, is beyond me.

If anything, it makes it much more justifiable for the USA to invade Iraq: if you created a monster, however justified you were at the time, you have the duty to remove him.

So why are the people who are pointing out how Saddam was an ally of the USA and was evil are the same people who are so much against the war in Iraq -- a war without which Saddam would still be ruling the place?

[Upchurch]

So why are the people who are pointing out how Saddam was an ally of the USA and was evil are the same people who are so much against the war in Iraq -- a war without which Saddam would still be ruling the place?
Well, I think the point is that we knew he was doing these horrible things for a long time and that there was no more urgent need to remove him when we did than there was at any other time. More to the point, we had other stuff going on at that time that was much more important to our national security than finally dealing with that particular black mark in our past.

Given what was going on at that time, it was a nonsensical decision that hurt our cause far more than it helped.

[ANTPogo]

So why are the people who are pointing out how Saddam was an ally of the USA and was evil are the same people who are so much against the war in Iraq -- a war without which Saddam would still be ruling the place?

Because the options available for dealing with Saddam were not, despite what Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al seemed to think, limited to just "minimizing his crimes, normalizing relationships, and arming and supporting him" and "invading his country and occupying it and dismantling then trying to rebuild its entire governmental structure".

EDIT: Plus what Upchurch said.

[Skeptic]

"invading his country and occupying it and dismantling then trying to rebuild its entire governmental structure".

Oh really? What other options? Sanctions? Nope -- he just let his people starve as he rebuilt his army. (And, of course, the bien pensants blamed the USA for Saddam starving his people anyway). International pressure? Like he cared. No-flight-zone? Ditto.

Indeed, it was quite clear that nothing except for an invasion would possibly remove him or stop the suffering of the Iraqis, since he himself and the clique of murderous kleptocrats (which you call the "Iraqi government") responsible for the running of the child prisons for the children of those who dared piss him off (Which you call "ensuring stability") would not stop their murderous kleptocracy unless forced by bombs.

But even if there were other options, certainly the best one, morally speaking, was the one that ended with him dangling from the end of a rope.

Well, I think the point is that we knew he was doing these horrible things for a long time and that there was no more urgent need to remove him when we did than there was at any other time.

So that makes his removal bad? How? It being hypocritical -- "Why do you remove the murderous dictator now when you could have done it sooner"? Well, I can live with that hypocrisy -- especially when the alternative, which you suggest, implies that Saddam still be ruling the place.

[psychictv]

Today is March 3, 2010. Bush has been out of office for more than a year.

Oh that's right, Obama got us into Iraq. I got confused there for a minute and was thinking it was that previous guy.

[ANTPogo]

You got your quote attributions messed up, Skeptic. That wasn't Undesired Walrus, that was first me, then Upchurch.

Oh really? What other options? Sanctions? Nope -- he just let his people starve as he rebuilt his army. (And, of course, the bien pensants blamed the USA for Saddam starving his people anyway). International pressure? Like he cared. No-flight-zone? Ditto.

I seem to recall a revolt attempt that was inspired yet unsupported by George H. W. Bush, and so were crushed by Saddam. An overthrow of Saddam from within in the early or mid 90's, even with US help, would probably have turned out a lot better than what we did in 2003.

But even after the US invasion, there was the whole "de-Baathization" thing which crippled our efforts to maintain order after Saddam's ouster. If the forcible overthrow of Saddam really was the only solution available, then Noriega's ouster from Panama should have been our model, not a full occupation and restructuring.

So that makes his removal bad? How? It being hypocritical -- "Why do you remove the murderous dictator now when you could have done it sooner"? Well, I can live with that hypocrisy -- especially when the alternative, which you suggest, implies that Saddam still be ruling the place.

That simply raises the question of why Saddam, and why the urgency? There are far more murderous and oppressive regimes that exist today. Take Turkmenistan, for instance, whose "dictator for life" Niyazov was cruel, capricious, and egotistical, ordering oppression and torture galore, punishing any political opposition with life in prison, and even renaming schools and an airport after himself. And yet, not only was he not the target of US invasion, he was our ally in the war against Saddam, even granting US planes overflight access and the use of an old Soviet airbase for emergency landings!

So why single Saddam out, and yet ignore people like Niyazov, and why the urgency?

[Upchurch]

So that makes his removal bad? How?
I never said his removal was bad, in and of itself. I will say that the timing of his removal borders on mentally deficiency.

This isn't a 100% good or 100% bad kind of thing. While Saddam's removal is a good thing, the way (and when) it was done has caused a lot of bad problems for us, the people of Iraq, and the middle-east in general. This is way too complex to be a binary evaluation.

[quadraginta]

Of course the US had to defeat the Hussein regime first, how could it have done it otherwise?

And are you saying the US isn't helping rebuilding Iraq? US troops haven't rebuilt roads, schools, electrical and water infrastructures? Where are all the trillions of dollars going to, do you think? What do all those contractors doing in Iraq right now?


Paying the tab on the "You break it, you buy it." rule that everyone not besotted by jingoistic campaign rhetoric predicted before we ever invaded Iraq.

This discussion is about why we went into the china shop in the first place, not about how much stuff we smashed after we went through the door.

[daenku32]

Oh that's right, Obama got us into Iraq. I got confused there for a minute and was thinking it was that previous guy.

That's right. Bush Jr has been removed from the history books. We shall never speak of his name again. I hear this was a common practice in ancient Egypt after the really bad kings were disposed of.

[quadraginta]

Yes, they were wreaking havoc in Iraq for a while. They're being defeated by your countrymen as we speak.


And I expect they are deeply grateful for all the money and blood we expended to give them that opportunity. Without our help it probably never would have been possible.

We gave an entirely new twist to the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy. An expensive one.

[Cosmic Roy]

And why did we go there instead of somewhere that the killing was still going on and we could actually save some kids?

Whichever way one apportions the blame for it, children were dying in the immediate lead-up to the invasion: http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/previous-issues-and-debate-on-iraq/sanctions-against-iraq.html

[Giz]

Fixed that for you. Reality is, during the Iran-Iraq war--when Saddam was committing these crimes--the West regarded Saddam as the good guy.

They didn't regard him as a "good guy". He was seen as the lesser of two evils.

If it helps, think of the way the US and UK helped Stalin in WW2. They didn't ship him 100,000s of jeeps/trucks etc because they thought Stalin was a good guy... they did it so that he would be able to continue to fight what was seen as the greater threat. When the greater threat was gone, so was the support (and the erstwhile ally shortly became the new threat).

Same old, same old. (And in some situations - such as WW2 - it's perfectly justified) (whether it was justified regarding Iraq/Iran will obviously be a matter of heated debate on the forum).

[Arcade22]

As much as we disagree, it's always helpful to have someone like Arcade or MaGZ to show how much we have in common in contrast to them.

You want to send your people to die in the middle east just because they can't act like civilized people.
You can hide behind your beliefs in 'solidarity', 'upholding human rights' ... but the only word that come up in my mind is simply TREASON.

[Upchurch]

You want to send your people to die in the middle east just because they can't act like civilized people.
You can hide behind your beliefs in 'solidarity', 'upholding human rights' ... but the only word that come up in my mind is simply TREASON.

So... you think we shouldn't have removed Saddam Hussain? (just checking)

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. The US had some nasty allies -- such as Saddam -- against even nastier enemies, such as Iran's Mullahs.

How this makes the removal of Saddam wrong, however, is beyond me.

People here are not saying it was wrong, they are saying that it is a post hoc rationalization when the arguments that were used to invade failed so totaly. I am saying that the argument is entirely hypocritical and complete BS.

If anything, it makes it much more justifiable for the USA to invade Iraq: if you created a monster, however justified you were at the time, you have the duty to remove him.

Then we should have used that as our argument to invade Iraq, no that BS about WMD's.

[ponderingturtle]

Whichever way one apportions the blame for it, children were dying in the immediate lead-up to the invasion: http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/previous-issues-and-debate-on-iraq/sanctions-against-iraq.html

And clearly in the civil war with all services cut they were doing so much better.

Look people lie when they say they care about dead children, or they would have done something about all the other **** holes in the world that children are being murdered in every day by violence and ethnic tensions. They would also care about things like antivax people killing kids.

But as people really don't care about those things except when it is convient I think people lie when they make emotionaly manipulative arguments about dead kids.

[Cosmic Roy]

And clearly in the civil war with all services cut they were doing so much better.

Look people lie when they say they care about dead children, or they would have done something about all the other **** holes in the world that children are being murdered in every day by violence and ethnic tensions. They would also care about things like antivax people killing kids.

But as people really don't care about those things except when it is convient I think people lie when they make emotionaly manipulative arguments about dead kids.

You don't need to try to read a partisan message in my post; I was just stating an apolitical fact, apolitically.

Actually I do have some strong opinions about the motives and excuses for the invasion, and the impact and legitimacy of the sanctions, but I'm not sufficiently widely read to argue them here. So I won't.

[Giz]

And clearly in the civil war with all services cut they were doing so much better.

Look people lie when they say they care about dead children, or they would have done something about all the other **** holes in the world that children are being murdered in every day by violence and ethnic tensions. They would also care about things like antivax people killing kids.

But as people really don't care about those things except when it is convient I think people lie when they make emotionaly manipulative arguments about dead kids.

Or, they do care but the USA has only finite resources and the reasons for invading in one place rather than another become compelling when viewed in aggregate rather than separately.

[Upchurch]

Then we should have used that as our argument to invade Iraq, no that BS about WMD's.
Or 'eminent threat'.

[Arcade22]

So... you think we shouldn't have removed Saddam Hussain? (just checking)

Yes.

[quadraginta]

Or 'eminent threat'.


Or even 'imminent threat', for that matter. :)

(Possibly 'immanent', though. :p)

[Upchurch]

Or even 'imminent threat', for that matter. :)

(Possibly 'immanent', though. :p)

Yur jus gellous of mi sooperier spilling skulls.

[ponderingturtle]

Or, they do care but the USA has only finite resources and the reasons for invading in one place rather than another become compelling when viewed in aggregate rather than separately.

Then if it was for humanitarian reasons not the WMD's that were argued at the time, why invade Iraq instead of many other nations with worse humanitarian crises?

This was not an issue at the time of the invasion, it is only an issue now because they feel the need to justify themselves when the reasons they invaded for fell through.