• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > So, will it all be justified?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1234
joe_sixsteps


joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...

Total posts: 310
Posted:As someone who deeply opposed the invasion of Iraq, I find that there is one pro-war argument in particular that is difficult to answer. It has been mentioned in the other war threads, but never properly discussed - we always seem to get sidelined by debating individual incidents, the truth about which no-one knows.

I tend to assume that the US/UK motives for engaging in this war were entirely self-serving and immoral, but for the purposes of this debate their motivations, I think, are irrelevant. The argument I always find it difficult to answer is this:

If, in five years time, the people of Iraq are significantly better off than they would have been under Saddam, will the war not have been justified?

This argument avoids questions of motivation, the existance of WMDs.. all the lies and rhetoric our glorious leaders espoused to talk us into this thing.

(should note that I consider those arguments to have been completely proved to be spurious -
even if there were WMDs we obviously had no idea whether they still existed, though of course we knew they were there in the first place because we sold them to him;
we are allied with and supporting regimes guilty of far worse atrocities;
both the CIA and the foreign service advised their respective governments that the post-war chaos in Iraq would reduce stability in the area rather than increase it;
no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida has ever been demonstrated)

Comes back to the question of whether you can do a good thing for bad reasons, I suppose. We could debate endlessly whether the Iraqi people or the world at large are actually better off for the change... but let's face it, none of us really know what we're talking about. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that in five years the Iraqi people and the world at large are going to be better off for this war (quite an assumption - it grates with me as well). Was it justified?


The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete Topic

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Frosty say
Quote:
...the suffering in Iraq was due to the sanctions.



The sanctions caused massive suffering, yes.
But Saddam's friendly local police force was torturing and murdering thousands of innocent people long before the sanctions started.

i heard some rumour that the iraqi police force currently being retrained are struggling with the concept of not torturing suspects ("how else do you get them to confess?")

Ray:
it's no good saying "this would have been a good enough justification for going to war"
if it wasn't used as the justification for going to war.
Civilised nations don't invade first and find the reasons afterwards.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

joe_sixsteps


joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...

Total posts: 310
Posted:Simian say:
Quote:
So if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland and just sat in Germany getting on with his Solution, we shouldn't have done anything?

Hehe, those peaceniks don't like a WW2 analogy up 'em



Fortunately for the peaceniks, any analogy between this and Saddam was rendered void when we sent our guns, money and ambassadors (including good ol' Rumsfeld) to Iraq AFTER the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds. I may have missed the point here though.



The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:My point was merely that there are (IMO) valid reasons to go to war even if a country is not a threat to those outside its borders.

i didn't mean that "if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland and just sat in Germany getting on with his Solution" was a similar situation to iraq in particular, and that justified the decision to go to war.

i repeat my often misunderstood position:
i think the US & UK were WRONG to go to war the way they did.
but
i think Iraq and it's people will be better off because of the war.

oh and just to clarify, (worried about offending his host for the next weekend wink ) the use of the word peacenik was in jest. i'd never use that word in seriousness.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:A quick one:

Quote:
Fortunately for the peaceniks, any analogy between this and Saddam was rendered void when we sent our guns, money and ambassadors (including good ol' Rumsfeld) to Iraq AFTER the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds.





I love an analogy! There's a lot of similaities. The rest of the world did sit back and let Hitler get way with murder. When world attention was focused on Germany for the pre war Olympics the final solution was already under way and camps were being built just outside Berlin. The world knew and let it happen, and in some cases helped it along. The actions of our countries pre WW2 are shameful. We sat back and let a country annex other countries, limit civil liberties and run a racial hate campaign. And years on we're letting the US do it now wink



Quote:
the violations of UN sanctions was enough to go to war.



No, it wasn't. To be in violation of the UN means you need to face and answer to the UN, not any old cowboy. There are several other countries that have repeatedly broken UN resolutions and I don't see the US going after them, in fact in some cases I see the US doing good business with them, trying to tap a new, billion strong market for the Coca Cola Culture.



Quote:
So shooting at US/UK aircraft doesnt constitute a reaction? Last I checked that was an act of war.



Check your history and you'll find many "acts of war" have been committed against countries, especially the US, and war hasn't started. So that's a pretty lame reason.



I know it's getting to be an old line, but the reason keeps going back to oil and profit. There are worse countries in the world, worse dictators and plenty of places for the US to act if they really do want to do, as GW says: "the right thing". But they don't. And the reason is that it doesn't profit the US to interfere in these places.



There simply was no prior justification for this war.



Sure, you can sit back and say that Iraq will be better off without Saddam. But you can never know how things would have gone if Saddam was left there, and sanctions weren't in place to destroy the country. And you're talking about a country that used to be the most advanced in the Middle East, and in some ways more advanced than the US in terms of education, healthcare. And oil production.


Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Dom, in your refutation of both Ray's points (which i also argued with when he made them) you state that because the US has done nothing in similar situations, it means they should have done nothing in this one.

i don't follow the logic...


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:No. It means they need to be a bit more honest about why they're doing something. Bush going on air to say: "My fellow Americans. You see that 6 litre SUV in your drive way. It needs more gas, and we're going to go get it." Sounds more honest than the current changing justification. ok?

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Quote:
No. It means they need to be a bit more honest about why they're doing something. Bush going on air to say: "My fellow Americans. You see that 6 litre SUV in your drive way. It needs more gas, and we're going to go get it." Sounds more honest than the current changing justification. ok?





Dom, Dom, Dom, Dom, Dom...

Your arguments, though compelling, lacks one very key part. Here in the real world, we call it evidence! Your arguments are based on a biased opinion and speculation.

Even if in 2 years down the road, we find out that there are and were no WMDs in Iraq and that it wasnt really Iraq who was violating UN sanctions, you would still need evidence that would prove that Bush went to war over oil.

I'm disappointed in you Dom; you usually come up with better arguments than that! frown

Quote:
and sanctions weren't in place to destroy the country



The sanctions were not in place to destroy the country, they were there to stop the country from destroying OTHERS... you know like Kuwait? Or did you forget about that little war?

Quote:
And you're talking about a country that used to be the most advanced in the Middle East, and in some ways more advanced than the US in terms of education...



You do mean among men though right? You forget that strict Muslims frown upon educated women.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:Ray, there's plenty of supporting evidence that oil was a motive, backed up by the post war actions of the Bush government. And there's lots of evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq. Saddam was bluffing in order to keep power and prevent invasion. It's a daily activity of many politicians. (Actually I was thinking about this and it run bells with WW2, where the UK bluffed having more strength than it actually did to the extend Hilter put off invading for fear of failure. And there's the theory that he respected the British enough to hold out hope for peace.)

And your last comment shows that you obviously haven't listened to what myself or anyone who knows about Iraq will tell you. Hang on, I'll use patronising caps lock:IRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN. In Iraq strict Islam was suppressed and women had equal access to education and jobs as men. And if you try yo'll easily be able to find millions of devout Muslims who believe in equality. Stop basing your arguments on narrow minded world views.


Delete

flash fire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

flash fire

Sporadically Prodigal
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Total posts: 2758
Posted:*mod hat on*

Dom, Ray: this needs to stop now.

Surely by now the two of you are bored with wasting each other's energy? When condescension plays a large part in your post, either rethink your motives in posting it (preaching to the deaf?), or hit the <back> button.

thanks


HoP Posting Guidelines
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
If you can answer YES to these 4 questions then you may post a reply.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:*not-a-mod-but-states-his-opinion-on-matters-that-don't-concern-him hat on*

yups indeedy to the less condescension advice.
Generally anything that starts with con... is a bad thing
(condemnation, controversy, contractions, consumption, confinement, connery, etc)

although i suspect Ray & Dom are thick skinned enough to take it from each other, given mutual consent.

Which is (kind of...) given by posting in this forum in the first place, where we expect *ahem* strongly worded arguments.

Of course, respect for others should be maintained at all times.

But Flash, your post seems to be requesting that people not argue here at all. Which would make this forum, and the intelligent debate contained within, rather redundant, no?

Have three smileys for attentive and groovy moddage though : smile smile smile


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

flash fire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

flash fire

Sporadically Prodigal
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Total posts: 2758
Posted:smilies noted.

I'm happy for continued intelligent debate. I would never ask that intelligent, adult, conceptual debates stop. I was asking two very naughty boys to stop throwing rocks at each other. peace


HoP Posting Guidelines
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
If you can answer YES to these 4 questions then you may post a reply.

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:Rocks? What rocks? confused

Oh! Those rocks! They're for my Japanese Zen Garden. Honest!


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Dom is a man, that I would love to just sit there an tease all night long, because I know he can take it and because I know he will dish out the same if not more.

I respect Dom, because he teaches me and has tought me more about the world outside of the US than I ever learned in my 3 years in England and over 1 1/2 of deployments for the USMC.

I may hate the guy sometimes but man he has my respect and because of that I feel a need to challenge him, because if I can beat him... oh that would make my year smile

(so Dom when are we gonna talk about the applied use of firepower during a combat situation? tongue )

I don't know if he sees all this or not, but I hope he does.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

flash fire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

flash fire

Sporadically Prodigal
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Total posts: 2758
Posted:Ray, the fact that "Dom can take it" is irrelevent. The fact that you and he create a negative space when you interact with each other on the board sometimes is a concern, hence my request (not the first) to please refrain.

Your above post sounds like contrived manipulations of a situation. clear as daylight. been there done that and, as a result, can see it a mile away. "respect = need to challenge" I think I used that one on my parents when they caught me skipping school when I was 16.

So, let's just be honest shall we?


HoP Posting Guidelines
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
If you can answer YES to these 4 questions then you may post a reply.

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Okay Flash, read what you want out of it.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Apologies Simian smile I enjoyed the bit about the rhetorical hippos. By fence sitting I was referring to the way Ray was distancing himself from the American human rights violations by saying he did not vote for Bush, it was out of his control, and he was not responsible in anyway. I found this a tad misleading.




If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:i enjoyed writing the hippo bit too smile

sooo

A N Y W A Y

will that war in iraq end up being justified?

or has this thread pretty much meandered its way to a foggy conclusion? umm


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

frostypaw


Great balls of fire
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent

Total posts: 643
Posted:We are kinda stuffed until it IS five years later and we can see...

but this is interesting and worth a read while we're on topic - Baghdad - Smiling faces everywhere - apologies if this is repeated elsewhere on this site.


I can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Awesome, i met one of those circus2iraq guys at Just Jugglers the other week. It sounded a really nice idea, but i wasn't sure if it would get a good reception there or not. i'm glad my worries were unfounded smile

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Page: 1234

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [justified] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Overeacting or justified concern? [6 replies]
2. Forums > Misuse of term 'fascist' [22 replies]
3. Forums > Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong? [63 replies]
4. Forums > Military buildup in UK airports [29 replies]
5. Forums > Canada: Electoral Debate [13 replies]

     Show more..