US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2010, 10:19 PM   #61
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 03:45 PM
As some of you know I have mixed feelings on the Iraq War. A lot of people do. But here's an idea: Lets stop discussing it in FYM.














Forever.




__________________

__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 11:42 PM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
He defends letting him remain in power in Iraq. [/B]
Some of us understand nuance more than others.

Some realize not everything is black and white...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 12:11 AM   #63
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Some of us understand nuance more than others.

Some realize not everything is black and white...
Some of us understand reality and basic facts. The only way that Saddam's regime could be removed was through a US led military invasion of the country. Because of the way that Saddam ruled the country, the police state that he set up over decades through the murder of thousands, campaign of terror, as well as playing off the various tribes and ethnic groups against one another, the size of the military, the size of the Republican Guard and the special Republican Guard, successful internal opposition against the regime was impossible. No other foreign nation had the means or the will to take on Saddam independent of having the US military with it.

So opposing the only way Saddam's regime could be removed in 2003 meant you supported letting Saddam remain in power no matter how much you may have wished it would just suddenly disappear.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 01:39 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:45 AM
You promote the ignorance coupled with hubris that drove the initial war strategy and resulted in so much unnecessary death. People could agree with the premise that Saddam had to be removed with military force whilst having serious misgivings about how the former administration handled it. You seem incapable of acknowledging that and take pains to defend a political gang which cost many Iraqi and coalition lives.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 03:51 AM   #65
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You promote the ignorance coupled with hubris that drove the initial war strategy and resulted in so much unnecessary death. People could agree with the premise that Saddam had to be removed with military force whilst having serious misgivings about how the former administration handled it. You seem incapable of acknowledging that and take pains to defend a political gang which cost many Iraqi and coalition lives.
The only ignorance here is your own as I have often acknowledged that mistakes were made by the coalition in the early days after Saddam was removed and the nation building process began along with fighting the insurgency. The strategy to remove Saddam was sound, the problems were with the post-removal occupation phase. Despite this, the Bush administration learned from its mistakes and did produce a strategy that helped to successfully manage the conflict in 2007. The majority that opposed that strategy were essentially for the immediate removal of all US forces by early 2008 which would have been a disaster for Iraq, and would set up the United States for a return to the country later on under far worse conditions, a far worse mistake than any of the Bush administrations in the early days of the occupation phase. But your ignoring what was being talked about above which is not the occupation and rebuilding phase of the war, but the decision to remove Saddam in the first place.

What few if anyone here seems willing to do is to caculate the cost and consequences of letting Saddam remain in power in 2003, especially considering that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq had just recently collapsed allowing Saddam to freely begin rebuilding conventional and unconventional military capabilities. What would the cost be to the Iraqi people in light of what the Iraqi people had suffered during Saddam's first 24 years or rule? What would be the cost to the region, considering what Saddam had done to the region in his previous 24 years in power? What would the cost be for the rest of the international community? What new weapons or dangers would a military coalition face when and if sometime in the future a military invasion was finally ordered?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 03:54 AM   #66
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
What few if anyone here seems willing to do is to caculate the cost and consequences of letting Saddam remain in power in 2003, especially considering that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq had just recently collapsed allowing Saddam to freely begin rebuilding conventional and unconventional military capabilities.
there's no evidence of this
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 04:07 AM   #67
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
there's no evidence of this
There is overwhelming evidence! Saddam's illegal oil sales grew from just a few hundred million in 2000, to over 3 Billion dollars in 2002. Syria openly stopped all of its UN monitering activities along its entire border with Iraq during this time period. Syria also began letting Saddam sell oil through the pipeline again. Jordan was letting UN humanitarian supplies meant for the Iraqi people be sold by Saddam within the country. Both Turkey and surprisingly even Iran loosened UN restrictions and monitering activities as seen by the sudden increase in truck traffic across both borders. France, Russia and China openly violated the flight ban with Iraq which was part of the sanctions. China openly began improving Iraqi military communications network as well as Iraqi Air Defenses. There had been mounting pressure from several corners of the international community to formally end most if not all of the sanctions and when this was not done, Saddam and like minded countries moved around it and turned the whole sanctions and weapons embargo regime into just a piece of paper.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 04:10 AM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 09:45 AM
i was hoping for a few more paragraphs and a few more sources
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 05:14 AM   #69
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
i was hoping for a few more paragraphs and a few more sources
"Syrian-Iraqi Trade Reached $2 Billion in 2001," Middle East News Agency, May 27, 2002

"Iraq Caught Smuggling Oil, UN Official Says," The Washington Post, October 26, 2001

Michael Slackman, "Oil Barrels Fuel Baghdad's Clout in the Region" Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002

Gary C. Gambill, "Iraq Returns to the Regional Stage," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 9 (October 5, 2000)

Nicholas Berry, "China , Fiber-Optics and Iraq," Center for Defense Information, February 26, 2001

Freedman and Stecklow, "How Iraq Reaps Illegal Oil Profits," p. A1

"Dancing On Sanctions Grave," Middle East Economic Digest, December 8, 2000

"Delhi Company Fuelled Iraq's Weapons System," Daily IRNA, June 6, 2002

Susan Blaustein and John Fawcett, "Sources of Revenue for Saddam & Sons, Inc.," Coalition for International Justice, draft manuscript, June 28, 2002, pp. 24-45

"The Oil 'Top-Off': Another Way Iraq Cheats UN," The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2002

"Iraq Accused of Smuggling Illegal Oil," Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2001

"Illegal Oil Surcharges Earn Baghdad Extra $300 Million," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 10, 2002

"Iraq Earned $6 Billion Illegally," Associated Press, May 29, 2002

"Turkey: Iraqi Diesal Trade Seen as Too Valuable to Stop," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, August 4, 2000

"Indian Arrested for Allegedly Exporting Arms Material to Iraq," Associated Press, June 6, 2002

"US Shifts Attack on Iraq Trade; Border States Seen as Key to Enforcing Sanctions," The Washington Post, March 26, 2001

"The Baghdad Dilemma," Middle East Economic Digest January 18, 2002

The Economist Intelligence Unit, "EIU Country Report: Iraq," March 2002
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:51 AM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 09:45 AM
can i get some content?
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 11:09 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 03:45 PM
hmmm.

well, i've thought about it some more, and i'm still not convinced.

try harder.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 11:32 AM   #72
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
hmmm.

well, i've thought about it some more, and i'm still not convinced.

try harder.
hmmm.

well, maybe you can try to convince us of your position, which is that letting Saddam's regime remain in power in 2003 would have been better for the Iraqi people, safer and more secure for the region especially Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia, would have been beneficial to the United States and its Allies in protecting the regions vast energy reserves, and would have helped in preventing the proliferation of WMD and other modern weapons.

Please explain why Saddam's regime was a good thing for everyone and a source of stability for the region and how its a "tragedy" that his regime is no longer there.

Tell us why you prefer Saddam to current Iraq leaders like Allawi or Maliki.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 11:46 AM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 03:45 PM
it's this whole either/or dichotomy you've presented.

it just doesn't hold water.

but keep at it. maybe you'll convince someone someday.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 11:52 AM   #74
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
hmmm.

well, maybe you can try to convince us of your position, which is that letting Saddam's regime remain in power in 2003 would have been better for the Iraqi people, safer and more secure for the region especially Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia, would have been beneficial to the United States and its Allies in protecting the regions vast energy reserves, and would have helped in preventing the proliferation of WMD and other modern weapons.

Please explain why Saddam's regime was a good thing for everyone and a source of stability for the region and how its a "tragedy" that his regime is no longer there.

Tell us why you prefer Saddam to current Iraq leaders like Allawi or Maliki.
How about...

I think the region was stable enough at the time (as much as it had ever been), had enough international scrutiny to keep Saddam in check, and Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States.
And, furthermore, the "vast energy reserves" that apparently needed protecting could have stayed in Iraq, and we could have spent $1,000,000,000,000 on domestic oil production, regional oil production or even alternative energy. Heck, we could have bought every household in America a small, neighborhood electric vehicle for that price.

Oops. Did I say "spent" on the Iraq War. I meant BORROWED AND HAVE NOT PAID FOR YET.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 12:16 PM   #75
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's this whole either/or dichotomy you've presented.

it just doesn't hold water.

but keep at it. maybe you'll convince someone someday.
Its your position. "The United States should not have invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power". You either supported the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003, or you didn't.

Since you didn't support his removal, you should be able to explain why you think leaving Saddam in power would be beneficial to the region and the world.

Why are you unwilling to discuss the cost and consequences of not removing Saddam in 2003?

I remind that the majority of the US military based on the annual military times poll continue to support the removal of Saddam from power in 2003.

The majority of the American public supported Saddam's removal and re-elected the President who removed Saddam 18 months later by the first popular majority in a US election since 1988. A majority of the American public continued to support the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 until mid-2005. Still, even today, 40% of the United States public believes that removing Saddam in 2003 was the right thing to do, and all indications are that this number will move back into a majority in the coming years matching the consistent level of support found in the US military.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com