Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

'Ell, one reason why I joined these forums was I was lookin' here and saw some threads here from the "Bush-Terror" camp that agitated me. I prepared this as a rebuttal and was going to post it in the nearest Iraq war thread, but seeing as there are none (or none that are relevant enough for me to post in), I dropped it here in a new thread ... I hope that's alright.

Anyway, on with the ranting.

(FORENOTE: I am Libertarian, and hardly a conservative. Keep that in mind before you attack me on the grounds that I voted for Bush or am Republican or something, because I didn't and aren't)

If there's one thing that'll get my goat faster than anything, it's when people imply or accuse the United States government and/or soldiers of being murderers who are doing nothing in Iraq but comitting war crimes and depopulating the nation, turning it into one big oil reserve for the U.S.

The United States is not carpet bombing Iraq. Our military and those who agreed to go in with us came with the sole purpose of getting Saddam out of power, without murdering the innocent.

Now the United States military and the ... uh ... "coilation of the willing" are trying to help Iraq rebuild itself without collapsing into civil war. There are those in Iraq (and those from the outside who are coming to Iraq) who want to see this new democratic Iraqi government fall, and instead put the Iraqi people under a religious extremist thumb, much like Iran; there are also those who want to return Iraq to a dictatorship.

Our soldiers aren't walking from house to house and murdering the people inside, which is what I bet many people believe is happening. Yes, there are incidents where Iraq and the U.S. have besieged cities held by rebels, like Fallujah. But these are not midnless slaughters of civilians. This isn't "Full Metal Jacket," where "anyone who runs is an enemy; anyone who stands still is a well-trained enemy."

And yes, I don't deny that incidents where soldiers have abused prisoners have (and probably will continue to) happen. Most people take this as evidence of the evil United States' obsession with comitting war crimes, but fail to notice that the soldiers who get caught red handed are punished by the greater system. Sure, parts of the chain of command might try to do a coverup, but when they're caught, they're punished and the rest of the government expresses outrage. Look up some of the sound bytes from U.S. congressmen upon discovery of the Abu Grabi incidents if you don't believe me.

Most of Iraq is still grateful that the U.S. and our allies came and kicked Saddam off his throne ... but hey, don't take my word for it. Take the word of a Canadian Iraqi.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnist ... 50149.html

This is straight from a Canadian newspaper that was covering the anti-US/anti-Bush protests recently. Notice how the native Iraqi, a recent immgrant, contrasts with the livid protestors' messages ...



The Dissident Frogman also said it well in his flash banner, "The Price of Their Peace."
(I am not linking to that here, given the graphic nature of Dissident Frogman's article ... find it yourself if you wish, but don't say I didn't warn you.)

I think that sums it up.

Oh, sure, Bush tried to convince the world into allowing an invasion of Saddam's Iraq over the WMD issue, and to date, no WMDs have been found. It's now known that Bush wanted to go after Saddam the minute he took office, and was trying to find a way to do so. His motives for doing so can be argued till sundown; you might think this is proof he just wanted Iraq's oil, but there's also the theory that he wanted revenge for his dad, whom Saddam tried to have killed. Or perhaps he just wanted to help rid the world of genocidal dictatorships.

Sure, that WMD issue looked like a flimsy pretext to invade, but it wasn't without merit. Captured aides to Saddam said that Saddam intentionally faked the existence of WMDs (pretending to have them, throwing out UN inspectors) to fool the U.S. and U.N. and scare them into not fufilling the resolutions that they would use military force if Iraq attempted to develop WMDs ... which backfired once Bush got into office.

And, y'know, there's that whole thing of Saddam gassing the Kurds after the Gulf War, using WMDs and what not.

However, I didn't support the war in Iraq over some hysterically false notion that Saddam was involved with 9/11 (though I did see the possibility for some connections back when the WMD debate was all the rage). Heck, I've wanted to see Saddam gone for a while, way before 9/11 ever happened.

I supported the war in Iraq for two reasons:

One was to get that country out from under the heels of Saddam, a man who gasses and murders his own people.

The other was to correct the real wrongdoing thatgovernment made a long time ago.

You see, my peoples, it was the CIA who put Saddam into power, years ago. It was a part of many ghastly and downright nasty things which our government's previous adminstrations did, and that we should recognize as black marks on our nation's history.

Why did we do it? It should be fairly obvious ... the CIA's actions in Iraq happened during the Cold War. At that time, we were playing (much to my chagrin) World Domination with the Soviet Union; supporting any country that was an enemy of communism.

In our government's eyes, a democratic nation that allied itself with the Soviets was more dangerous and a threat to the U.S. and the "free world," than a nation run by a Hitler clone who was against communism.

That led to many henious acts as the U.S. tried to maneuver the world's ideological landscape against the Soviets. However, the Soviets were playing the exact game (not to mention things on a far more sickening scale, like Stalin's gulags). Problem is, they were able to keep everything about what THEY were doing secret to the world, whereas we didn't. Free press and all that. The end result? The U.S. looked (and still looks) evil and the Soviets looked heroic; yet, in reality, we both were doing the same things. (Actually, I don't recall our government ever doing any mass genocidal killings ... )

This second invasion of Iraq, this capturing of Saddam Hussein and turning him over to the people he abused, is repentance in my eyes; we are comitting the blood and lives of American soldiers (and those who are willing to stand by us) to throw Saddam out, to set right a wrong, and rebuild the nation into a free, democratic state that represents everyone, not just one man's "political party" or one extremist sect of a religion. Military and civilian engineers are not just rebuilding oil pipelines and fields like many people cynically believe; towns and civilian infrastructure are being repaired. Power, water, sewage, roads.

... Perhaps it would have been best if the U.S. acted unilaterally after all, rather than dragging others nations' soldiers into correcting a mistake that was ours ...

Yet ironically, the world hates us more than ever before, fueled by idiots like Moore's ramblings, and there are many who fanticize killing Americans over this. I've heard remarks like "Wars are good because they rid the world of the American disease." ...

Does anyone else see the irony in being hated for trying to right a wrong?

By the way, if anyone's curious ... no, I did not sign up for the military. If a draft ever happened, however, I would serve without question. I may have not been alive (or even if I was, aware of what was going on) to have stopped decisions that put Saddam into power ... but I can certainly help to ensure that Iraq's people will suffer no longer.

_________________

First, there is already a thread for this. Look under "War on Terror." While your point that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 is valid, this topic has already been discussed at lenth in that thread. But I'm sure a friendly neighborhood mod will fix it if he feels it necessary.

I never supported the war in Iraq. My reasons are based on the definition of Just War, which includes these components:

1. There must be adequate provocation for war (i.e., an attack or threat of attack). Iraq was very stupid in the games it played with the UN, but it did not constitute adequate provocation for a full-scale war. Had he attempted to invade Kuwait again, that would have been a different matter.

2. The response must match the provocation (i.e., a small border skirmish doesn't give you the right to nuke your enemy's capital). Full-scale war far exceeded the appropriate boundaries of a fair response. Now, had the US simply bombed one of the suspect facilities as a warning, that would have been appropriate.

3. The goal of warfare is to preserve stability and peace between nations. The US motive for invading Iraq was to overthrow a whole regime. This is not appropriate. Although Saddam was a monster, we had him pretty much under control. We could have pressured him into playing ball, for example, by bombing one of the facilities where the alleged weapons were being developed. And as it stands now, we are much further from our goals of stability and peace than we were before the war. It'll be interesting to see how things develop over the next year or three.

In short, it was an unjust action on the part of the US to invade Iraq. It had nothing to do with 9-11, it had nothing to do with oil, but it was still an unjust action on our part. President Bush knows this and, after all this time, is still unwilling to admit it.

I am a veteran myself. I served during the first Gulf War, back in 1991. I can honestly say that I would feel much better serving a president who I felt confident was not going to risk my life unless absolutely necessary. Because Bush is still unwilling to admit his mistake, he has set for himself a precedent to do the same thing again the next time there is a minor threat. The lives of our US servicemen and women are too valuable to waste in unnecessary conflicts like the one in Iraq.

_________________

Bah, that always happens. I try to look for an appropriate thread, can't find one, post and it turns out one already existed. Oh well ...

Alright, so from your point of view; you find the war in Iraq unjust because the war was carried out on a pretext that Iraq was an international threat, and that the percieved threat didn't exist, correct?

Hindsight is of course 20/20 ... Given that Saddam was trying to fake the existence of WMDs and such, any evidence that would have hinted towards Iraq's possession of WMDs up until then would have seemed far stronger.

Either way, I suppose it boils down to one's opinion on what is a just war and what isn't. In my opinion, this war is very just, regardless of the WMD issue (or Saddam's support of terrorism, which IS true. He did announce that he would reward the families of Palestenian terrorists ...). It's a war in which our forces are trying to leave the country in a better state than before we invaded (regardless of the President's intentions).

Warfare, as you describe it, would only apply to a handful of wars throughout history, as certanly many nations instigated wars to disrupt international peace and stability; and there are wars that have been fought for other reasons which should be considered just in their own right. In a larger sense, wars and military actions are violence that is directed and controlled for a reason; used as a means of change, to make your opponent do what you're wanting done.

_________________

Well, here's a good place to review what are considered the rules of a just war. You might notice these articles in particular:

_________________

Exactly. I totally agree with those. And this war was a just cause in my opinion, which are not limited to self-defense against an armed attack, as evidenced by your own link.

I should also point out, again from your own link:
"War can only be waged with the right intention. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention"

... You know, like, American and Coilation forces getting Saddam out of power when it was the CIA who put him there in the first place.

I notice you bolded the parts about torture of non-combatants and combatants, and respect given to prisoners of war.

Again, the incident at Abu Ghraib is terrible, yes. U.S. senators have expressed outrage at both the incident and the fact it was hidden from them, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that's terrible and humilating. Heck, even Saturday Night Live made Megan Ambhul (I believe it was) their "scumbag of the week" when word of the incident got out. (And though I know it probably means little, Rumsfield did apologize publicly.)

As far as I know, those involved are getting investegated and court martialed. I know that four have been convicted already, sentenced to prison time for either committing the acts or allowing them to happen. It happened, but it is not being ignored. I think that's a rather important point which should not be tossed out the window.

Yet, given your response (and from other posts I have seen by you in this forum), I gather that you have condemned the actions of the entire U.S. armed forces in Iraq over Abu Ghraib and see absolutely no value in the attmepts made to set this right, and to punish the offenders.

I strongly disagree with that kind of thinking. Again, prisoner torture is terrible, and I am apalled that American soldiers would do that; but they aren't getting away with it. I feel repentance and attempts at redemption are actions which must be noted; they can not simply be blown off in order to continue decrying a group for its wrongdoings.

_________________

Correcting a wrong suffered? What wrong exactly are you referring to? Most of Saddam's intense villainy took place prior to the original Gulf War. If we are justified in eliminating him now, then why didn't we do so back then? Furthermore, the term "wrong suffered" refers specifically to acts committed by the enemy against a nation or its allies.

What exactly did Saddam do? He played a shell game with the UN. My opposition to the war is based primarily on that notion that the response should correspond to the wrong or threat committed. His little shell game did not warrant a full-scale invasion on our part. Diplomacy was not given a chance to work. No other enforcement actions were taken. Accordingly, the retaliation (full-scale war) far exceeded the wrong committed. It's like killing someone for calling you a dirty name.

As for the torture, you have a valid point. Absolution and forgiveness are the proper response to confession and repentance. Since those in power are in fact trying to resolve this difficulty, it is best to give them the benefit of the doubt. As a veteran myself, I feel ashamed that these soldiers could commit such atrocities, and I certainly hope they and any others involved suffer the full consequences of their actions.

But the difficulty for me, as it was back in 2002, is that our response to Iraq was pure and simple overreaction and poorly made choices. Bad data led to wrong conclusions, and quick tempers led to hasty, excessive actions. And now, because of this unfortunate series of events, American lives are being lost, Iraq is in turmoil, and the Al-Qaida have a perfect recruiting ground for future terrorists.

So, to sum up, here again are my reasons for opposing the war:
1. Lack of adequate provocation.
2. No use of diplomacy and/or other enforcement options.
3. Use of excessive force in reaction.
4. Goal was not to secure peace, but to overthrow a regime.

Therefore, to convince me that this war is just, you'll need to prove the following:
1. That Iraq was a real threat to us (keeping in mind that there were no WMD's).
2. That Iraq's actions just prior to the invasion merited a full-scale invasion (i.e., that our punishment fit the crime).

_________________

I am not quite sure why Saddam wasn't removed during Operation: Desert Storm, though it should have been done then ... heck, he should never have been put into power in the first place. The whole tactic previous administrations used to fight the Soviets sickens me.

From what I understand, though (and I am probably wrong ... I need to do more research on this part), the international community was opposed to Saddam being overthrown, and would not support such an action by the U.S.

I was going to write more and respond to the rest of your post, Didymus, but I'll have to get to that later.

_________________

In my mind the war was pointless, I see it as W finishing up what his father couldn't do in one term. It was justified early this summer when the white house admitted they got bum information from where ever they got it.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Historically, an under-four-year war is a rather unreasonable expectation. I see Operation Iraqi Freedom as W. finishing up what Billy didn't have the (insert anatomy here) to finish, because Billy was too busy using his (anatomy) for (verb).

To answer Didymus, I think we as a nation need to consider the needs of our allies when making military moves, and our two strongest allies in the Middle East were both under continual threat from Saddam. While I personally would not have invaded if it was me in 2002 moving the chess pieces knowing what I knew then, I am fine with our country (or our president if you have an emotional need to personalize it) overthrowing the regime.

_________________

I have to throw my agreement in here.

Being a military man myself, I've always seen Saddam as a threat, and a possible reason for me to frickin' deploy.

The sooner we get rid of the threat, the sooner my friends can come back from Baghdad International...

But that's just me.

I'ma have to say that I sit on the fence with this one....I want all the troops to come home...especially with the recent bombings...but I definitly agree that Saddam and his regime should be removed. I just wish there was some other way...but I guess there isn't.

I don't agree with Dubya on all his policies...especially ones that pertain to women's rights...but his troops fighting this war have my prayers and support.

I surely hope Seethroo NEVER has to deploy.

_________________

Saddam Hussein was a threat, but only about as much as one of those annoying yappy rat dogs, you know, the kind that bark at you fiercely and snap at your heals, even though they're only big enough to fit in a shoe? Who hasn't had the urge to kick one of those little yappy rat dogs, or blow him away with a shotgun? But is it really necessary?

Saddam didn't have any real power to threaten us after the first Gulf War. Even this whole thing with the weapons inspections was like one of those dogs yapping at your feet; he couldn't really do anything, but he sure as crap was going to act like he could.

_________________

I feel sorry for the poor suckers who signed up for the military in hopes for getting an education and a steady job. Since in a lot of areas, there aren't any jobs BUT the military. And with tuition costs, many families can't afford to put their kids though college...

But those people who signed up to "defend America" got what was coming to them. I fell no sympathy for those foolish enough to think than ANY military operation after WWII was "defending America"...

_________________

WW2 wasn't really defending the U.S. I mean, we got riled up about December 7th (in case you forgot that was Pearl Harbor Day), but the fact was that the mainland wasn't threatened. Dr. Z must have been in Europe during 9/11/2001 where the mainland was hit. Or in a cave on Mars, with his eyes shut and his fingers in his ears. (pardon the harsh soundingness of that quote, I heard it on Fraiser and thought it was funny... I say it with a smile )

I stand by what I said about standing by our allies. Saddam had a reward of $1000USD for Palistiniean suicide bombers' families. He may have been a yappy dog, but he was a yappy dog with a bankroll financing terror in the Middle East. Israel is a U.S. ally, and they treat us like it. So if we stand up for our beaten brother on the planet, I'm OK with that (Didymus ).

But back to the point, the last time the mainland of the U.S. was in danger? I don't know, 1812? Later if you count non-European aggressors. But if any president waited until the enemy troops were unloading on the shores, we'd execute him for treason... so presidents including Democrats in general send troops to areas of conflict through the world to prevent bombs from dropping in Dr. Zaius' hometown. And it's worked pretty well for the past 150 years or so. So well in fact, that it seems Dr. Z has been raised so sheltered that he doesn't know that peace is a lot more than the absence of war. Maybe he should move to a country like Spain with a "cave-to-terrorist-demands" popular opinion.

_________________

Hitler was trying to take over the world, you actually think he would have just stopped with Europe and Asia? Also, little do you know, Germany declared war on US! Japan was the aggressor, they attacked us. We declared war on them, and then Germany declared war on us.

And if Saddam was really going to invade us, there would have been a whole lot of steps between the military capabilities he had before the invasion to what he would actually need.

And eat me, you sanctimonious wanker. We wouldn't BE in this mess with the world if America hasn't fudged everything up to begin with. Our little "cold war" is what made all our enemies.
All those little military operations you're so proud of, the ones that supposedly prevented us from being attacked by the whole world apparently, IS WHAT MADE EVERYONE HATE US!

I won't go to Spain, but I would like to move to Canada. Free health care, little crime, and pending America doesn't annex them, no worldly enemies. So yeah, you war mongering "patriots" can go ahead and wallow in that hole you keep digging yourselves...

_________________

Didymus:

Before I learned of Saddam's aides spilling the beans about how I was faking the existence of WMDs and their development, I reasoned that he could have still indirectly dealt a blow to the U.S. There's nothing saying that, in the interest of slaughtering American civilians, he could have discreetly sold WMDs to terrorist groups. This is, of course, assuming he had them, which we didn't.

He did, however, support terrorists indirectly through (as I mentioned) rewarding the families of Plaestinian suicide bombers. There's probably a few other things he did to support terrorists, though I cannot list any and therefore that's speculation. However, I'd think encouraging terrorist action by saying "I'll give your family a bunch of money if you blow yourself up in the middle of Israeli civilians" to be pretty bad.

Dr. Zaius:

You're correct, none of the 'hot' wars since WWII (with the exception of Operation: Enduring Freedom, I suppose) have been fought to defend the United States against a clear and present physical threat to the States or any territories.

However, most of the conflicts and actions taken in the Cold War were in the interest of protecting America from the ideological threat Stalinism (not necessarily communism ... ) posed. Now, many of those said actions were terrible (e.g. putting Saddam into power). I cannot overstate this: While I recognize the intent, I sorely disagree with many of the actions taken by the adminstrations of the time. There were other methods that could have been used to ideologically stop Soviet Russia. We could have sent aid and helped out democratic countries, regardless of whether they were communist or not, to win their favor, rather than using the CIA to install bloodthirsty dictators.

Which leads me to this blurb by you ...



Yeah, and while you do that, "war-mongering patriots" will fix the mistakes of the past by restoring democracy to nations the CIA put Hitler-like dictators in.

_________________

Free health care only does so well until you get REALLY sick dude...see our thread on Heath Care in this forum for more discussion (too lazy to link!) And the only reason the crime rate is so low is because we have like, a tenth of your population! OF COURSE we have less crime!

But that's not what this thread is about. I realize that while Saddam was not an immediate threat to us, I still am glad he's out of power and we're taking down his regime.

I have this memory of discussing the Gulf War with my mother back when it was happening; I was only about 10 or 11. I was an innocent child who suggested that perhaps Saddam wasn't such a bad man, maybe we were "bad" for attacking him. My mother was very concerned and she related an anecdote about Hussein, holding hostage and tourturing one of his own people (I was young, and don't remember the exact circumstances). The man's wife pleaded for her husband's life, willing to do anything for her husband's safe return. And what did "good ol' " Saddam do. He released him. Sent him back to his wife. In a bag. All chopped up.

Now you tell me we shouldn't do anything about a monster who slaughters his own innocent people.

And see my earlier post if you want to hear me support our men and women fighting for us.

_________________

Exactly, StrongCanada; especially since it was the actions of an American administration that put him in, we should remove him and correct the suffering Iraqis have felt under him.

Again, it's interesting that peace-at-any-price-ists like Dr. Zaius prefer to label the actions of those trying to ensure that Iraq's people do not suffer any longer as barbarianism.

I really, really want to link to Dissident Frogman's "Price of their Peace" right now. Can't though, it's too graphic, but Frogman's message for the protestors, "You didn't walk for the peace of Iraq. You walked for Saddam's peace. You walked for your own peace. Not for the people who suffered under Saddam's rule" is all too right on.

_________________

I've been mulling over something the past week, and as it turns out I'm not alone.

George W. Bush has pledged $350 million in relief for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami.

That's a nice gesture, right?

The U.S. government has spent, and continues to spend, that amount every 42.7 hours in the War on Iraq.

_________________

Oh man....and we are going to have to pay for it all...

Buh-bye, Social Security! It was nice thinking about you while I could!

_________________

Keep mulling, there's more to think about yet.

If you compared what amount of money GM spent on making cars versus the amount of money GM gave to the Tsunami relief effort, you'd find the same discrepancy! I'd like GM to make cars (though it's nice when they do a little extra), and I expect our federal government to cover the military angle. Military efforts is one of the primary jobs of a federal government, humanitarian aid is not.

That doesn't mean that I don't want humanitarian efforts. I can do something with my personal money for humanitarian aid, though I can't do something with my personal money for military efforts (unless it's legal for me to hire mercenaries to assasinate people). In another thread, we had the same discussion about crisis pregnancy centers. I'd rather have a locally-funded (community) crisis pregnancy center than a federally-funded crisis pregnancy center seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

I have observed that government misuses humanitarian dollars, with something like 28% of the money ending up in needy people's hands after all the beaurocracy... compare that with Christian organizations that submit to the EFCA... most are over 90%. If the government would lower our taxes by the amount it spends on these kinds of humanitarian efforts, we could give HALF of the tax refund and the needy would get TWICE as much.

So I am glad that our federal government has limited the spending to $350 million. May your taxes not go up too much this year.

_________________

If you'd like to help, check out Lutheran World Relief. 100% of funds collected will go to relief in SE Asia.

_________________

What threat? Oh yeah I remember those rusty chunks of metal we found buried.

And eliminating an evil? Dubya is just finishing what the UN told his Dad not to do during the gulf war.

_________________

_________________

Did you hear that there's speculation that we may be going after Iran next? I wish our men and women could come home...they run a lot of commercials here of local service men/women saying hello to their families. Every time I see one, I just want to break down.

_________________

Iran was the next target on W's list, but there doesn't seem to be any reason now. Iran quit producing the weapons-grade uranium.

_________________

I had stopped watching this thread, since I didn't think I had anything else to contribute. But I just received something to contribute, so I'll post it here. If you don't care about it, then so be it.

I've removed the names myself because the serviceman sent it as a personal email and probably didn't want to get any spam as a result. I've also shortened it with elipses for brevity's sake and have tried to keep the original flavor.



I felt this was on-topic, but if you don't then I'm sorry to have distracted you.

_________________