The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

If principles are not held more precious than lives, even the lives of babies, then we lose both the lives and the principles.

I agree with that intellectually, but my feelings are that the SOB deserved it.

[Zenda]

"So are you trying to say that to Americans, G.W. Bush is actually the 'good-guy'?"

No, but look at it this way. You have a representative form of government, and like all other politicians Bush was merely watching over the interests of certain groups of people. You can't make everyone happy at the same time. And he did have the support of the majority of the country, didn't he? Many of you did vote for him, not?

Also, from an economic viewpoint, what was done did bring a lot of benefit (for the US), so yes, you maybe might call him a good guy.

The real issue is not in all the reasons why this war was started. I'm sure those reasons were good enough for those involved, no matter how true or false they were. The real issue is the lack of restraint that was shown. As a powerful nation you have the responsibility not to abuse that power against weaker countries.

Anyone who had, or even still has, a reason for the war, is to blame for it. Not just those who made it possible.

"American currency is so entwined with the rest of the world's economy that if the dollar fell, the world would collapse"

With the current system, the US will always make profit of any transaction in dollars, around the world. That also means you will be hit hardest. Nations that would suffer most are already offloading their dollars, replacing them with various other currencies.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

If we don't embrace Boy Scout ethics, then we've lost. If we descend into barbarity to protect ourselves from the barbarian, then we have become the enemy.

More later (probably).

--Pete

Walt Kelly wept.

Occhi

(We have met the enemy and he is us, Pogo line.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Walt Kelly wept.

Yep, had Pogo in mind when I wrote that. My secret is out. My philosophy is based on the Sunday comics :lol:

"How come we're the kind of people that always walk back from a boat ride?" -- Albert

--Pete

[Lissa]

Anyways, did you catch that part in the end about how America is trying to do the same thing with nuclear energy? I see it happening now, how American representatives insist Iran and other countries use American or Russian technology for their nuclear reactors to "prove" they aren't creating nuclear weapons. Another "free" source of revenue collected from another consumable energy source? At this point however, American currency is so entwined with the rest of the world's economy that if the dollar fell, the world would collapse; then I suppose the need for a one-world currency would arise. Revelations anyone?

If you realized just what it requires to get highly enriched uranium, you would want people to prove that they're enriching for fuel too. Since the late 80s, the technology has been out there to highly enrich uranium in a single pass using lasers, anyone that has access to laser technology can do this as well.

Also, the sheer number of centrifuges Iran has going is problematic as well. They have a single power plant, yet they have enough centrifuges going to supply multiple power plants. Tell me you don't find an issue with that?

[kandrathe]

A monetary system built simply on the need of the American dollar from outside sources, because "everyone needs oil" is so absurd, its wrong.

I dunno. Not such a stupid, absurd thought actually. Relate oil to farming, to transport, to every individual who commutes, to plastics, to virtually everything we do. Now, expand that to energy in all its forms. If you make the dominant form of energy more expensive, simple economic supply and demand will drive up the lower priced forms as well. It stands to reason that if oil prices increase, then electricity prices will increase, even if they are generated from hydro, or nuclear. I would say there probably is a linkage between prosperity, freedom and the abundance of cheap energy.

[Thecla]

Well, I debated if it was worth replying to this thread any more since we're obviously at an impasse. Saying the same things over again won't get us anywhere...but anyway...here it is.

In invading Iraq, the US invaded a country which had not attacked or threatened the US, and which did not pose an immediate threat. The US did so with no kind of international legitimacy (the "coalition of the willing" was a farce, with a few exceptions, such as the UK and Tonga). And the US attempted to justify its actions with false and exaggerated claims.

The prosecution of unnecessary and illegitimate wars goes far beyond the bounds of what is wise or acceptable. Even if someone were to support such a war in the case of Iraq (because, say, they were concerned about Iraq's threat to long-term security if it were able to restart its weapons programs, or because, say, they wished to ensure the continued flow of oil from the middle east), how can anyone justify the Bush administration's deception in selling the war or laying out their reasons for invading Iraq?

The result has been a financial, humanitarian, and strategic disaster.

And one last comment. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invaded. It was the US invasion that enabled them to enter the country, allowing them to ignite a bloody sectarian civil war in 2006/07. The day the US went into Iraq, you can be sure that the happiest man on earth was not George Bush but Osama bin Laden.

[kandrathe]

In invading Iraq, the US invaded a country which had not attacked or threatened the US, and which did not pose an immediate threat. The US did so with no kind of international legitimacy (the "coalition of the willing" was a farce, with a few exceptions, such as the UK and Tonga). And the US attempted to justify its actions with false and exaggerated claims.

Any nation can start a legitimate war until it is declared illegitimate by the UN Security Council. So, while the UN tepidly danced around authorizing the war under UN auspices, they didn't resoundingly denounce it either.

The prosecution of unnecessary and illegitimate wars goes far beyond the bounds of what is wise or acceptable. Even if someone were to support such a war in the case of Iraq (because, say, they were concerned about Iraq's threat to long-term security if it were able to restart its weapons programs, or because, say, they wished to ensure the continued flow of oil from the middle east), how can anyone justify the Bush administration's deception in selling the war or laying out their reasons for invading Iraq?

Again, I will take this as your opinion and commentary. The short answer to your question is we may not have a full view of the implications of war, and not going to war. Until you can compare them objectively, all you are viewing is the hindsight 20/20 position I indicated earlier.

The result has been a financial, humanitarian, and strategic disaster.

I'm not sure what you mean. Then, all wars are disasters and far more costly than this one. The toppling of the WTC towers was a disaster too. You can have disasters from action, and from inaction.

And one last comment. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invaded. It was the US invasion that enabled them to enter the country, allowing them to ignite a bloody sectarian civil war in 2006/07. The day the US went into Iraq, you can be sure that the happiest man on earth was not George Bush but Osama bin Laden.

Where was Aḥmad Zarqawi in the summer of 2002? What was his relationship to Jund al-Sham and OBL in 1999?

[Jester]

Any nation can start a legitimate war until it is declared illegitimate by the UN Security Council.

You are confusing the crime with its enforcement.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

You are confusing the crime with its enforcement.

Don't you know? It's not wrong unless you get caught. Discovered by Teflon Ron, perfected by Shrub:)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

You are confusing the crime with its enforcement.

No. You are confusing the jurisprudence of individuals with the affairs of sovereign nations.

[Thecla]

Any nation can start a legitimate war until it is declared illegitimate by the UN Security Council.

This is an extraordinary statement, whatever you mean by it. Apart from self-defense against an armed attack or the imminent threat of such an attack (neither of which apply to Iraq), there are very few legitimate reasons to start a war.

So, while the UN tepidly danced around authorizing the war under UN auspices, they didn't resoundingly denounce it either.

Nonsense. Of course the UN rejected the war. The US (with the UK and Spain) explicitly sought UN approval for military action. They withdrew the draft when it was clear that it wouldn't pass, and invaded anyway.

The short answer to your question is we may not have a full view of the implications of war, and not going to war.

We'll never have any view of alternate histories, at least not unless there are some startling developments in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics or Jorge Luis Borges turns out to be a non-fiction writer. All we can look at is what actually happened, and the consequences of the Iraq war have been almost universally negative. (Insert obligatory comment about how Hussein was a brutal dictator, maybe the Iraqi people will eventually benefit from his removal, and democracy and freedom will bloom in the desert next to the oil wells blah blah).

I do agree with you that we don't yet have a full view of the implications of the US invasion of Iraq. We might see in 5 or 10 or 20 years how things play out. But, though it's irrelevant to the present case, I'll point out one general principle: good results don't justify bad actions.

Until you can compare them objectively.

Compare objectively what is with what might have been, you mean??

all you are viewing is the hindsight 20/20 position I indicated earlier.

As I keep pointing out, none of this required 20/20 hindsight.

I'm not sure what you mean. Then, all wars are disasters and far more costly than this one.

Ummm...hate to break this to you, but if this is intended as a reductio ad absurdum argument, then it fails badly. Yes all wars are disasters. Small wars might be small disasters. Large wars are invariably large disasters. Sometimes wars cannot be avoided, but that's exactly why no one should especially start a war without very good reasons. It's true that some students of military history might be disappointed by a shortage of wars, but overall I think it would be to humanity's benefit.

As far as costs go, if we talk in financial terms, the Iraq war is already more costly (in adjusted dollars) to the US than any war except World War II (more than World War I, Korea, or Vietnam). Depending on how you account for the long-term financial costs, the cost of the Iraq war may be approaching that of WWII. And it's been financed almost entirely by borrowing.

The toppling of the WTC towers was a disaster too.

Yes, it was. But as terrible and shocking as that disaster was, the costs of the Iraq war have exceeded it in every respect.

Where was Aḥmad Zarqawi in the summer of 2002? What was his relationship to Jund al-Sham and OBL in 1999?

What organization was Zarqawi affiliated with in 2002? When did he swear loyalty to bin Laden?

[Jester]

No. You are confusing the jurisprudence of individuals with the affairs of sovereign nations.

Kofi Annan, as Secretary-General, declared that the war was illegal by the charter. The US did not have the Security Council's permission to declare a war of aggression, and did it anyway. The charter (to which the US is signatory) says you can't do that. What part of this am I confusing?

-Jester

[Jester]

...Jorge Luis Borges turns out to be a non-fiction writer.

Actually, Borges' selected nonfictions is one of my favorite books.

But I get your meaning, just being nitpicky.

:shuriken:

-Jester

[Thecla]

Actually, Borges' selected nonfictions is one of my favorite books.

Ah, but can you be sure that Borges' non-fiction really is non-fiction?;)

[kandrathe]

Kofi Annan, as Secretary-General, declared that the war was illegal by the charter. The US did not have the Security Council's permission to declare a war of aggression, and did it anyway. The charter (to which the US is signatory) says you can't do that. What part of this am I confusing?

So we are to abide by Kofi Annan's wishes? Was the US intervention in Serbia in 1999 done with US congress or the UN's blessing? Which wars in the UN's history have had the UN's blessing (choices might include those such as Aden, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Israeli 7-day war, Panama, Angola, Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq round 1, Rhodesia, Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Falklands, Sudan/Darfur or Sierra Leone)? Why did Kofi Annan do nothing about the genocide in Africa during his administration, or was he too busy watching over the UN oil for food program to care?

Besides, Resolution 1441 is ambiguous and vague enough to allow the US to invade Canada if we so desired. We can dice the legalities of Res 1441 if you like, but it's old ground trampled by many. I know which side of the ambiguities you stand on.

[Jester]

Besides, Resolution 1441 is ambiguous and vague enough to allow the US to invade Canada if we so desired. We can dice the legalities of Res 1441 if you like, but it's old ground trampled by many. I know which side of the ambiguities you stand on.

How ambiguous is the idea that a UN resolution is enforced by the UN security council, and not by whoever decides they have the authority to play global sheriff? The charter is abundantly clear on this point.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How ambiguous is the idea that a UN resolution is enforced by the UN security council, and not by whoever decides they have the authority to play global sheriff? The charter is abundantly clear on this point.

Although, Res 1441 is unclear as to when, who, and how a material breech is determined, and then whom would deliver the serious consequences. You read that to mean that Res. 1441 was meaningless drivel, and the Bush administration read that to mean that Saddam continued frustration of weapons inspections and lack of cooperation, not meeting deadlines and obfuscation was a material breach. They also presented this point at the security council when trying to get the UN to commit to having a spine and following though on its "threat" of "serious consequences". They did not. The US made its case on how Iraq was threatening them (true threat or not, they made the case), and then acted in accordance with the UN charter to defend themselves from the percieved hostile threat. I would add, the only thing scarier than an illegal war, is a legal one. It reminds me of the Vatican's decrees on just and unjust war.

War is the result of failed politics.

[Jester]

Although, Res 1441 is unclear as to when, who, and how a material breech is determined, and then whom would deliver the serious consequences.

Who did you think they meant would enforce 1441? Chuck Norris? The Harlem Globetrotters? The Security Council is the sole body with this authority. This is not a confusing issue.

You read that to mean that Res. 1441 was meaningless drivel, and the Bush administration read that to mean that Saddam continued frustration of weapons inspections and lack of cooperation, not meeting deadlines and obfuscation was a material breach.

Even stipulating that this interpretation is true, it does not change the basic facts of authority. The Security Council, not the United States, had the authority to decide whether Iraq was in material breach, and what to do about that. Again, this is not ambiguous.

They also presented this point at the security council when trying to get the UN to commit to having a spine and following though on its "threat" of "serious consequences". They did not.

Turns out, the UN was right. Iraq was not in material breach, they had no relevant WMD, and their "obfuscation" was apparently for trivial reasons. If having a spine means declaring wars without good reason, then I think I'll go with spineless.

The US made its case on how Iraq was threatening them (true threat or not, they made the case), and then acted in accordance with the UN charter to defend themselves from the percieved hostile threat.

So, all you have to do is make a case (true or not) that another country is a threat to you, and you can then declare war on them without the UN or anyone else giving their permission? This is certainly a novel interpretation of the charter. A more obvious one would be the interpretation that you must actually be attacked before you can invade another country to defend yourself.

I would add, the only thing scarier than an illegal war, is a legal one. It reminds me of the Vatican's decrees on just and unjust war.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but from where I sit, illegal war looks a lot scarier than legal war.

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

No. You are confusing the jurisprudence of individuals with the affairs of sovereign nations.

Near as i can tell the logic of your argument rationalizing the war in Iraq is that it was reasonable for the US to believe that Iraq was a threat (either at the moment or in the near future), and that this possible threat was enough to warrant aggressive action by the US against Iraq.

It's funny, i've heard the same logical argument elsewhere recently... hmm where was it? oh yeah, the case in Texas where law enforcement saw a possible threat to the children of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and because of the possible threat they took action to remove them. In this instance you were aghast at how Texas overstepped it's authority. So which is it? Does the possibility of threat warrant the aggressive action? or is it just that much easier to use relative morality when the victims of that aggression are half a world away?