Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Look this is all very complicated. Maybe we should let the whole thing go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Look this is all very complicated. Maybe we should let the whole thing go?that's kinda BHO's policy. you're not backsliding into obamism, are ya, LA? becoming perhaps a closet obamaniac? don't wait for the translation; answer me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickeen Stark Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Was it justified? No. It was based on a lie, that in itself, should tell you it isn't justified. We won't know the full extent of how it effects the region for many years, but the current state does not look promising. War is terrible and should be used as a last resort; if we went after people with nuclear weapons and who -have- used them, should we attack the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Look this is all very complicated. Maybe we should let the whole thing go? I'll leave this for you to ponder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dISaQouOuWg :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Still keep hoping this was meant for the Entertainment board and FX has announced a Justified prequel about Boyd Crowder in the Gulf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 OK. I pretty much accept that the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq was based on false premises and likely complicated the whole "war on terror." That being said, I think that whether Bush invaded or not, another war with Saddam was probably inevitable, I've been doing some reading, and seemed like we were already half at war with Iraq from after the Gulf war to the Iraq invasion. Throughout the 90s we periodically bombed Iraq, once after Saddam tried and failed to assassinate Bush 41. Clinton even made it official policy to overthrow Saddam ( tho could have been less out of conviction, and more to distract from the Monica thing.) 2/3rds of Iraqi airspace was patrolled by US/UK planes, all to prevent him from gassing/bombing the Shias and Kurds. There was no UN mandate for the "No-Fly Zone" and under international law, Saddam was well within his rights to try and shoot them down (which he occasionally did.) During the 90s it seemed a reasonable opinion that Saddam wanted to get WMDS, and there was an entire UN commission devoted to him not having them. In fact I am surprised that he didn't have an active weapons program. Did he just realize it was futile, or simply didn't have the funds to do it? Anyway, The "status quo" as it was in the 12 years between Iraq wars seems so tense, that I highly doubt Saddam would remain in power today even if we hadn't invaded, and judging his past actions (Iran, Kuwait, Kurds) its reasonable to think he would have tried something dramatic again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitbert Strangejoy Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 OK. I pretty much accept that the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq was based on false premises and likely complicated the whole "war on terror." That being said, I think that whether Bush invaded or not, another war with Saddam was probably inevitable, I've been doing some reading, and seemed like we were already half at war with Iraq from after the Gulf war to the Iraq invasion. Throughout the 90s we periodically bombed Iraq, once after Saddam tried and failed to assassinate Bush 41. Clinton even made it official policy to overthrow Saddam ( tho could have been less out of conviction, and more to distract from the Monica thing.) 2/3rds of Iraqi airspace was patrolled by US/UK planes, all to prevent him from gassing/bombing the Shias and Kurds. There was no UN mandate for the "No-Fly Zone" and under international law, Saddam was well within his rights to try and shoot them down (which he occasionally did.) During the 90s it seemed a reasonable opinion that Saddam wanted to get WMDS, and there was an entire UN commission devoted to him not having them. In fact I am surprised that he didn't have an active weapons program. Did he just realize it was futile, or simply didn't have the funds to do it? Anyway, The "status quo" as it was in the 12 years between Iraq wars seems so tense, that I highly doubt Saddam would remain in power today even if we hadn't invaded, and judging his past actions (Iran, Kuwait, Kurds) its reasonable to think he would have tried something dramatic again. It's true that hostilities hadn't ceased, but he was largely contained during this period. While there is no question that he was a tyrant and an awful human, the costs of an invasion have proven not to be worth the benefits, for either the U.S. (and allies) or the Iraqi people. The power vacuum alone has been devastating, and has acted as an incubator for extremists that are easily as bad or worse than Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 What is done is done. No use in crying for spilt milk. I only want to know one thing: when will the perpetrators of this war of aggression answer for the crime against peace? Only when the responsible end up behind bars on long prison sentences and their countries make appropriate reparations, which would hopefully prove that international justice applies to victors and defeated both, will the wider world in earnest begin to accept the leadership of those that like to imagine they have the "burden of leadership" thrust upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The way Saddam's hanging was leaked onto YouTube was particularly tasteful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 What is done is done. No use in crying for spilt milk. I only want to know one thing: when will the perpetrators of this war of aggression answer for the crime against peace? Only when the responsible end up behind bars on long prison sentences and their countries make appropriate reparations, which would hopefully prove that international justice applies to victors and defeated both, will the wider world in earnest begin to accept the leadership of those that like to imagine they have the "burden of leadership" thrust upon them. If we would do so, it is widly believed that the Finn or Danish government would take over the world, for they would be the last governments remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Serious question - how bad was repression of Shiites during Saddam's reign? Very variable. Early baas regime wasn't much about religion, and Saddam had several shiite generals and ministers. Then there was a big anti-shia purge a year or two into Iran-Irak war, but mostly to remove those in important positions. Out of that many were killed for deserting or helping deserters, but those not opposing the war weren't oppressed more than other irakians (that's far far less than the kurds, if still involving regular kidnappings and torture/assassinate of opponents). Things changed when the shia swamp irakian revolted after first Gulf War, thinking Clinton would support them. Last decade of Saddam regime were the worse for them, Saddam making sure they were the first victims of the embargo, cutting pharmatic delivery to shia regions etc.. and exterminating the whole families of the people who took arms in Bassora insurrection. That said it was never full "religious oppression", but more one on tribal basis (some shia tribes/regions considered loyal remained well treated, some sunni considered traitors oppressed as much as shiites). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If we would do so, it is widly believed that the Finn or Danish government would take over the world, for they would be the last governments remaining. Something to think about, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Something to think about, no? No, actually not. It is a simple truth that if you would apply something in its most rigerous fashion, only people who are kind of isolated from anything which could cause problems would be not in trouble. Thats why everybody wanting to do something along those lines is first and formost applying a huge tube of self-immunization. Meaning an excuse why the standarts they set for others should not apply to them. The last funny thing I heard in this direction was that somebody was arguing that you know confronting somebody with the factual truth is a form of rape. So sure, then everybody is a rapist the second they start to think for themself. Ok. Is that really something you need to think about? The reason why words like warcrimes, war of aggression or rape are used has most of the time nothing to do with their meaning but with the emotional charge they posses. And most of the time it is done just for self promotion or self victimisation(thats annoying but not problematic), but sometimes it is also done to create moral equivalents. And thats actually quite dangerous. If everything is a crime or war crime, we wont be able to stop everyting, but instead the meaning of the word crime or warcrime is deminished. And genocide is in the end as morally problematic as not going to church on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Ambar Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 #LordArrynforMod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 JamesArryn,So, it is the duty of the United States to unilaterally depose any despotic dictators in power around the world?My friend, it's a different Arryn you're addressing. I might write as Lord Arryn is, but only as satire. Most of the points have been addressed on page 1, but to deal with the legalistic argument about the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, it's important to note that the same agreement was very clear and specific in terms of who would and who would not decide:1) if the terms were being violated2) to what degree3) the appropriate response.And that was the UNSC. Not the USA. In rejecting the UNSC's authority as 'too slow' or w/e and resuming hostilities, the U.S.A. violated the same agreement Lord Arryn is citing as just cause. Conclusion: the U.S. should invade itself.But as much as we scoff at the OP, this WILL be how American history remembers the war. We're on our way towards the 'Hiroshima/Nagasaki was done to save lives' or 'the U.S. entered WWII to save Europe from the Nazis' revisionist sanitation BS superpowers use to sidestep past wrongs in order to stay convinced of present rightness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 But as much as we scoff at the OP, this WILL be how American history remembers the war. We're on our way towards the 'Hiroshima/Nagasaki was done to save lives' revisionist sanitation BS superpowers use to sidestep past wrongs in order to stay convinced or present rightness. I think it will be remembered differently because then it was an empire approaching the height of it's power and now it is an empire in decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of the Vale Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 No, it was not justifed, iraq had no wmds It was A dictatorship, but the population have it worse now than they did under Saddam and why have the us not "liberated" other dictatorships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of the Vale Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If we would do so, it is widly believed that the Finn or Danish government would take over the world, for they would be the last governments remaining. The norwegian goverment would also remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I think it will be remembered differently because then it was an empire approaching the height of it's power and now it is an empire in decline. People said the same thing after Vietnam. Probably there is more truth to that statement at this point then there was then. Still if we could get a decent president, better than the guys we have had for the last 20 years or so, maybe that person could turn things around a bit. People talking about the US, in terms of it being an empire, which is a fair statement, is a big part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.