US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2010, 12:34 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
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.
Stability in the region was dependent on the ability to contain Saddam primarily through the sanctions and weapons embargo. As the above sources indicate, the sanctions were in very poor shape. Saddam was also in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions which did not in any way suggest stability. China, Russia, and France, permanent members of the UN Security Council were actually violating restrictions that were put on Iraq. The stability and the security of the region depended on the enforcement of those resolutions and that did not fully happen until Saddam was removed.

Given the importance the region any threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, is a threat to the United States given the impact these countries can have on the global economy through their natural resources.

Quote:
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.
The issue was not Iraq's oil sector which was underdeveloped at the time, but protecting the large energy reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE which the global economy is dependent on.

The United States does not have enough oil, even if it were to increase production, to off set the disruption caused by a crises in the Persian Gulf involving the cut off of energy flowing from the region. Alternative energy is more expensive and to this day is still years or decades away from being able to replace the planets dependence on Persian Gulf energy.

Quote:
Oops. Did I say "spent" on the Iraq War. I meant BORROWED AND HAVE NOT PAID FOR YET.
Still only a fraction of what the United States has spent and borrowed on other things this past decade and a tiny fraction of what the countries total annual GDP and what congress spends on an annual basis.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 02:05 PM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:57 PM
hmmm, public opinion and speculation seem to be really bad rationales for supporting an operation that caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

still not buying it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 02:18 PM   #78
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
hmmm, public opinion and speculation seem to be really bad rationales for supporting an operation that caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

still not buying it.

I don't waste my time thinking about how bad Hussein would/could have been if he had stayed in power.

I do think about the soldiers sent off to Iraq for a grudge and a lie.
I do think about the kids that have to say goodbye to their parents when they leave.
I do think about the wounded soldiers who aren't getting all the help they need, but will be needing it for decades and decades.
I do think about mortgaging our future with the debt incurred by a war based on lies.
I do think about all of the chickenhawks that were so eager to send young people to do something that they choose not to.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 02:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Strongbow, wouldn't you agree that it's pointless for Kramwest to keep arguing with you?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 03:04 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Strongbow, wouldn't you agree that it's pointless for Kramwest to keep arguing with you?


i still don't buy it Sean, do you?

(and, please, see if you can respond for once without the vicious personal attacks that you're so famous for, lest i have to take out my ruler and rap your delinquent knuckles)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 05:29 PM   #81
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
hmmm, public opinion and speculation seem to be really bad rationales for supporting an operation that caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

still not buying it.
I simply mentioned the military opinion and public opinion polling because you seem to believe that there is only one person that thinks Saddam should have been removed in 2003.

But please, can you explain for us why you think letting Saddam remain in power in 2003 would have been better for US security, regional security and the Iraqi people?

Why do you think Saddam would be a better leader for Iraq than Malaki or Allawi?

Every President that decides on a particular course of action, especially when it comes to military intervention, must weigh the benefits with the cost and consequences of taking that action or not taking that action. Obama's national security team just went through a similar process in its decision to surge troops in Afghanistan.

But when it comes to Saddam, it would seem you think there was some greater benefit to leaving him in power, greater than the cost and consequences of leaving him in power.

So why not start off by explaining why you think letting Saddam remain in power in 2003 would be beneficial for the region, Iraqi people and US and international security.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 05:48 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 PM
There are all kinds of bad people in power in many countries.

Leaving Saddam in place is exactly what they did in 1991. And from 91 to 2003 he was no real threat to anyone.

There were quite a few bad dictators in Eastern Europe in the 80s. None of those countries were invaded by the West and liberated. They all managed to struggle and grow and make their own changes. Some are still working on it now. they will solve it in their own way and own time.


The Bush Admin should have spent all of the resources and time and energy getting Afghanistan and Pakistan done right.



Iraq was a War profiteer's wet dream come true, over and over and over again.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 05:54 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:57 PM
i know, right?

seems like we made a mountain out of a mole hill.

still not convinced. even less so, now, after all these posts. there doesn't seem to be anything particularly compelling. in fact, they read pretty desperate, like someone can't admit to being wrong.

but, who knows, right?

keep on trying.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:03 PM   #84
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post

I don't waste my time thinking about how bad Hussein would/could have been if he had stayed in power.
Well, any responsible leader must assess the risk, cost, consequences as well as benefits of any course of action. The world would have been a lot better off if there had been more of this type of scrutiny and assesment of Hitler in the 1930s.

What are the implications for the region and the world with the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo needed to have a chance of containing Saddam?

With the collapse of containment, what other policy options are there for the United States in dealing with Saddam?

How would this change the military balance in the region as well as Saddam's assessment of what he could do?


If the United States and its allies didn't act against Saddam in 2003, what would be the cost of acting against Saddam 2 years, 4 years, 6 years later, given that Saddam would be relatively free to rebuild his conventional and unconventional military capabilities?

How many more US military personal would die in a war years later because Saddam was allowed to remain in power despite the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo?

What sense does it make to try and remove Saddam years later when the cost of any war would be far greater as well as the cost of reconstruction?

How many citizens and military personal of countries in the region would suffer and die because Saddam was allowed to remain in power?

What are the risk to global energy supply and the global economy of letting Saddam remain in power in 2003?

How many Iraqi people and children would suffer and die because Saddam was allowed to remain in power?


Let me remind that Saddam is a leader that invaded and attacked four neighboring countries unprovoked, used Weapons of Mass Destruction more times than any other leader since World War I, threatened much of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage that would have thrown the global economy into a great depression, launched ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Kuwait, was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, failed and resisted the international community in verifiably disarming of all WMD, hid WMD and WMD related programs throughout the 1990s and up until his removal from power. These and other actions that Saddam engaged in during his 24 years in power led to the deaths of over 1 million people and massive environmental demage in the Persian Gulf.

So anyone assessing, whether or not to remove Saddam in 2003 MUST consider these historical facts in deciding what the cost and consequences of letting Saddam remain in power would be.

While intervention does have cost and consequences, not intervening also has cost and consequences.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:07 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 PM
I think it will be the prevailing attitude historically


Iraq war wasn't worth the cost - CNN.com


all this going on about removing Saddam from power, no one ever thought that would be difficult, heck they had the guy in 1991

the question was always the long game? what does that leave?

no one, not even the naysayers were predicting such a ruined country with no services and an exodus of the best and brightest

very likely we have set up a fractured state like Lebanon, where regional players will wage proxy battles.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:15 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Quote:
What are the implications for the region and the world with the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo needed to have a chance of containing Saddam?

you have asked this several times

so I will address it directly.

if the sanctions came off, and you seem to want to make the argument they would
Saddam may or may not have rearmed

again, I will go with your premise that he would have

next he may or may not have attacked another country

the simple answer is he probably would not have done anything real bad,
because he would have the memory of the ass-kicking he got in 1991.

but if you want to say he would,
again lickidy-split he would be taken down and out in a matter of weeks by overwhelming force,
just like he was in 2003 for no real reason.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:28 PM   #87
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
There are all kinds of bad people in power in many countries.
There were quite a few bad dictators in Eastern Europe in the 80s. None of those countries were invaded by the West and liberated. They all managed to struggle and grow and make their own changes. Some are still working on it now. they will solve it in their own way and own time.
Let me remind you that Saddam is a leader that invaded and attacked four neighboring countries unprovoked, used Weapons of Mass Destruction more times than any other leader since World War I, threatened much of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage that would have thrown the global economy into a great depression, launched ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Kuwait, was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, failed and resisted the international community in verifiably disarming of all WMD, hid WMD and WMD related programs throughout the 1990s and up until his removal from power. These and other actions that Saddam engaged in during his 24 years in power led to the deaths of over 1 million people and massive environmental demage in the Persian Gulf.

How many of your other so called "bad" people had a history even remotely like that, with particular emphasis of INVADING and ANNEXING other countries and threatening global energy supply and the global economy? Name one!

Quote:
Leaving Saddam in place is exactly what they did in 1991.
Yes, and I supported that policy like many others did because most people did not believe Saddam would still be in power by 1996 and that in the meantime an effective sanctions and weapons embargo could contain him.

Quote:
And from 91 to 2003 he was no real threat to anyone.
YouTube - ‪President Clinton orders attack on Iraq‬‎

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of in-action. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. SADDAM WILL STRIKE AGAIN at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.

President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:45 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
you have asked this several times

so I will address it directly.

if the sanctions came off, and you seem to want to make the argument they would
Correction, by 2003, the sanctions as they were intended only existed on paper.

Quote:
Saddam may or may not have rearmed
What evidence from Saddam's history suggest he would not re-arm?

Quote:
next he may or may not have attacked another country

the simple answer is he probably would not have done anything real bad,
because he would have the memory of the ass-kicking he got in 1991.
Remember, Saddam viewed the 1991 Gulf War as a VICTORY! In addition, new weapon systems both conventional and unconventional would change the caculus of what in HIS view was realistic. Mistakes Saddam made in 1991 would unlikely to be repeated.

In addition, Saddam is in very close proximity to area's of the world where he could use his resources and wealth to cause massive damage. Peacetime restrictions on the number of US forces that could be actively based in the region made dealing with this problem even more difficult.

Quote:
but if you want to say he would,
again lickidy-split he would be taken down and out in a matter of weeks by overwhelming force,
just like he was in 2003 for no real reason.
This ignores the fact that Saddam would be armed with new conventional and unconventional weapons that could dramatically change the cost and consequences of war with Saddam.

The whole purpose of containment was to prevent the events of August 1990 from ever happening again. It was not designed as a system to respond after another Saddam invasion of a neighbor or the destruction of oil fields etc. It was about PREVENTION and with the collapse of containment, the only effective way to prevent Saddam from getting new capabilities and making war on the region was to remove him.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:57 PM   #89
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I think it will be the prevailing attitude historically

all this going on about removing Saddam from power, no one ever thought that would be difficult, heck they had the guy in 1991

the question was always the long game? what does that leave?

no one, not even the naysayers were predicting such a ruined country with no services and an exodus of the best and brightest

very likely we have set up a fractured state like Lebanon, where regional players will wage proxy battles.
The prevailing attitude among the US military is that it was NOT a mistake to remove Saddam from power based on the annual military times polls since 2003.


A new gallup poll just released today shows an increase in the number of Americans saying that removing SADDAM was NOT a mistake.

As of July 2010, 44% of Americans say it was NOT a mistake to remove Saddam, up from 39% in July 2009, and the highest percentage figure seen on this question in 4 or 5 years.

As I have predicted earlier, more and more Americans will start to move back to seeing the removal of Saddam as the right choice and the new polling data, surprisingly is already showing this.

Ironically, while the number of Americans that feel invading Iraq was the right course of action is increasing, the number of Americans that feel invading Afghanistan was the right course of action is decreasing.


Today, Iraq's monthly murder rate is often lower than montly murder rates in the United States and has been consistently lower than the murder rates seen in Mexico and Russia.

Iraq today has a standard of living equal to that Morocco based on education and life expectancy statistics from the United Nations and estimates of annual GDP from the CIA.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 07:00 PM   #90
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i know, right?

seems like we made a mountain out of a mole hill.

still not convinced. even less so, now, after all these posts. there doesn't seem to be anything particularly compelling. in fact, they read pretty desperate, like someone can't admit to being wrong.

but, who knows, right?

keep on trying.
The only thing that seems desperate and strange is refusing to explain why one thinks leaving Saddam in power in 2003 would be best for US security, the region, the world, and the Iraqi people.

Why would it be better to have Saddam as the leader of Iraq rather than Maliki or Allawi?
__________________

__________________
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 03:57 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