(December 30, 2015 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 30, 2015 at 12:26 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: That is a laughably false analogy.

I'll admit that it's somewhat flawed (all analogies are), but I don't think it qualifies as 'false'.  The point is whether or not you can punish an actor (either a State or an individual) for crimes not yet committed.   Hussein was a thug and a brute, no possible doubt, but the fact, as real as a fist in the face, was that he hadn't committed an act of war against the US or its allies or even its interests.  The first Gulf War, the one based on the invasion of Kuwait, was different.  He had committed an act of war and got his arse handed to him for his troubles.  But none - absolutely NONE - of the reasons given for the sequel either panned out or justified that war.  It was a war of political economics and expediency, and the nightmare situation today in the Middle East is the direct result.  The steaming great hypocrisy of the US justifying the war by saying that Hussein was an existential threat is utterly laughable and morally repugnant.  The three real reasons that Saddam was attacked were:  1)  The US desperately needed something to bomb after 9/11;  2)  Attacking Iraq was politically more expedient than attacking North Korea; and 3)  I won't come right out and say it, but here's a hint:  It rhymes with 'fetroleum'.

But back to the analogy:  Saddam was attacked and deposed based on what he might have done.  This is directly analogous to an individual being incarcerated or executed for a crime they might eventually commit.

Boru

I don't claim to be informed on the subject. But if there was reason to suspect any nuclear foul play, you can't compare that with anything. Clearly, something has to be done in that case, whether it's spying, limiting resources, and so on. When we're talking about the possibility of developing nuclear warfare we're not even close to talking about crime and punishment, we're talking about the survival of the human race.

(December 30, 2015 at 2:56 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I don't claim to be informed on the subject. But if there was reason to suspect any nuclear foul play, you can't compare that with anything. Clearly, something has to be done in that case, whether it's spying, limiting resources, and so on. When we're talking about the possibility of developing nuclear warfare we're not even close to talking about crime and punishment, we're talking about the survival of the human race.

Yeah, but look up what led up to the Iraq desaster. Look up, how the world laughed in Powell's face when he presented his so called evidence at the UN. Powell himself cringes in shame when talking about it. To his credit. I just wished he would have faced the consequences back then. Look up what other nations had to say on the matter, what conclusions the UN commission came to.

Rhythm Wrote:I'm a bit appalled to see so many people forget who and what Saddam was.  All anyone is discussing is our embarrassing war.    Perhaps, going forward, we should leave people under their despots and tyrants, the world over, because we're afraid of embarrassing wars, because we worry that something bad might happen if we try to help people, we worry that if we get rid of one terrible cunt :gasp and shock:.........there may be more.

Clearly -all- of that is our fault, and the world and iraq would be a better place if we'd just left it all alone. lol.

The man being an awful brutal genocidal dictator and the region in general being better off with him than without him are not mutually exclusive.

Here's our record: at no point has our meddling in the Middle East clearly resulted in a better situation for the region or us in the long run. We aren't capable of predicting the consequences of our military actions there with any appreciable accuracy. So we have a choice between spending our blood and treasure without knowing the outcome or letting the Middle East steer its own course without us using force to try to get the outcome we want. Of course, we can never take a chance on trying the latter. Doing anything is better than doing nothing, even if nothing turns out not to be such a disaster.

I seriously doubt conclusions that begin with the notion that keeping him in power is/was the only way any scenario better than the one we're currently in could have been arrived upon.   Mutual exclusivity isn't even a factor.  If there were some other way to provide the "stability" saddam brings to the table, without needing Saddam...pretty sure that's a better option. It's very dfifficult to believe that Saddam Hussein was capable of something that no one else in the world was, or even in Iraq alone.

Just a moment ago I was being told that we both could and did predict this outcome.  The way to win a war is to avoid it, believe it's been said.  We did try the latter.  Sanctions had failed to produce results.  Iraq was a failed state, Saddam a despot.   We could have taken our chances (more appropriately some other group of peoples chances) with doing nothing....we certainly do that elsewhere..as we've all just been reminded.

(December 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I seriously doubt conclusions that begin with the notion that keeping him in power is/was the only way any scenario better than the one we're currently in could have been arrived upon.

Not the only option. In that you're absolutely right. There are countless fictitious options without Saddam. But we have to deal with realities and not fiction. Reality however only offers reality. And that's the comparison between relative stability and the instable and bloody situation we have now. In all honesty, does anyone even stop eating their breakfast over news that another dozen of people have been blown up in Iraq? Does it even make headlines what atrocities ISIL commits in its occupied territories?

The reality is, as long as it's about brown people, hardly anyone gives a shit. But it's the same brown people, this supposedly was about. Not about lucrative contracts for Haliburton and Cheiney. So, no. I find nothing in what you have said so far, that makes me reconsider my standpoint. This was, at best, a futile endeavor. At worst, it worsened the situation. And I'm rather leaning towards the worst outcome, since we are worse of without the devil we knew, as well as the Iraqis.

I don't stop eating my breakfast at the news that another dozen people have died in the US either.  If you want to repeat the word reality, then I'll remind you that the reality of Saddam, and the reality of whatever stability he was able to provide...was grim.  I'm also disappointed that this was a war for profit.  I also see the campaign we undertook as a futile endeavor.  The devil we knew was still the devil, and getting rid of him was a good idea.  Preventing the current implosion of the region was not impossible, either before or after he was deposed. The argument can be made that the implosion of the region was not, itself, possible before or without our interventions (and specifically our fuckups).  

Again, had we been truly committed to regime change, and the Iraqi people, I feel that we could have done a world of good. Plans to do that, a method, a system of action. That did and does exist.  I've seen us do good, I've done it.  The reason that it fell apart was not because we removed a brutal dictator, it was because we were not, in actuality, committed to regime change or the Iraqi people.  Our commitment lay elsewhere. I don't hope to change your position on the actions we undertook, I share your position.

(December 30, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Again, had we been truly committed to regime change, and the Iraqi people, I feel that we could have done a world of good.

No argument here. Which brings us back to the Clausewitz quote. Ugha, Ugha, Saddam bad, needs ot be disposed off, isn't a vaild exit strategy. And that basically was the only approach.

And, let me say, I feel you, since you've actually served in the US army. It can't be a good feeling to see it was all about corporate greed.

That was most definitely -not- the only approach...jesus christ, lol. We went with a shitty plan, headed by incompetents, devised by and for criminals. We had other plans, the entirety of our command structure are not incompetent. Hell, I could have offered a better plan than "smash and grab, take whatever isn't nailed down then leave em in the dust to fend for themselves"....and I'm a fucking grunt.


( I made my peace with corporate greed, guns cost money, it's a moth and flame situation. Plenty of profit could have been made without shittifying the region the way we did, there -is- money in doing the right thing. It did have a huge impact on me though, yeah. Changed the way I look at life. Quixotically, for the better, lol.)

(December 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I seriously doubt conclusions that begin with the notion that keeping him in power is/was the only way any scenario better than the one we're currently in could have been arrived upon. 

Pretty sure it would have been a better scenario though.

Quote:Perhaps, going forward, we should leave people under their despots and tyrants, the world over,

Rhythm, why is that our problem?  Don't the oppressed have a duty to rise up if they want to change their condition?  No one helped the French or the Russians to overthrow oppressive governments.  Quite the opposite, the world lined up against the revolutionaries.  Even the French only came to our aid when we showed that we might actually prevail after Saratoga, and let's be honest, France was still smarting over the results of the 7 Years War.