Iraqi Defector Admits To Lying, Iraq Liberated By Mistake

[Winston Blake]

Invasion - Moral but illegal. Iraqis die and suffer a lot in the short-term, but better in long term.

If the last statement here was true or even anywhere close to that, I bet people would have a different view of the Iraq war. However, what is "long term"? What is "short term"?

[snip various arguments about Iraq suffering great harm]

If Winston thinks invading nuclear armed nations is a morally sound idea [...]

This is my interpretation of the Sea Skimmer View: [...] I am interested in whether the proponents of the Sea Skimmer View are consistent

I remember a time when people habitually broke things down and sorted things out on SDN, now it seems the norm is to just skim haphazardly and speak one's mind. With friends like these who needs enemies?

To put it another way, you can either say the invasion of Iraq was immoral or you have to admit that the current American failure to invade other similar countries (like North Korea) is immoral. Either way, America is doing something immoral. I was interested in whether the other side grasped that. Is that clear now Stas?

Moral and legal. Norks die and suffer a lot in the short-term, but better in long term. American reputation FURTHER down the drain - etc etc.

Once again, if nuclear weapons detonate over Korea, there'll be a very radioactive "long term" for both North and South Koreans and the Chinese. As for DPRK having an ongoing famine (with people dying from malnourishment), I believe that is no longer the case since 2002. Even the Wikipedia tells us as much. There is a constant risk of recurrent famine due to floods, etc., but so far it seems these risks have not materialized into an actual new famine.

I've had a look over it again and I can't see any talk of an actual end, just talk of continuing relief shipments and lack of food self-sufficiency. I don't know. Maybe the big one did end in 2002, but in any case, thousands of people would still be starving every year.

[K. A. Pital]

Your interpretation of Skimmer's view included presuppositions which were false themselves (a better outcome in the long term, etc.). It is pointless to discuss a logical construct when presuppositions have not been proven true, because it lends credibility to a view that does not have it, and next, if you'd think about it a bit more (like I did upon reading your post)...

You would find that North Korea and Iraq are not the same. Precisely because the DPRK has nuclear weapons and thus the "long run" will not be positive, but an irradiated battleground and nuclear fallout all over the place instead.

Skimmer's view on Iraq does not require a similar view on North Korea for that exact reason I put above - the outcome in Iraq cannot be impacted by deterrence weapons like nukes.

[Winston Blake]

Your interpretation of Skimmer's view included presuppositions which were false themselves (a better outcome in the long term, etc.). It is pointless to discuss a logical construct when presuppositions have not been proven true, because it lends credibility to a view that does not have it, and next, if you'd think about it a bit more (like I did upon reading your post)...

You would find that North Korea and Iraq are not the same. Precisely because the DPRK has nuclear weapons and thus the "long run" will not be positive, but an irradiated battleground and nuclear fallout all over the place instead.

Did it occur to you that if somebody on the Skimmer side then piped up and claimed 'Oh no they're not the same because the long term outcomes are worse in NK', then the burden of proof would be on them to prove and compare exactly what the outcomes in both cases would be? Also, I have no idea why you're so afraid that simply clarifying the other side's view might 'lend credibility' to it.

Skimmer's view on Iraq does not require a similar view on North Korea for that exact reason I put above - the outcome in Iraq cannot be impacted by deterrence weapons like nukes.

See, if somebody on the other side had actually said this, then they would be admitting that the claims that Iraq had various WMDs actually meant they should NOT have been invaded.

E.g.
A: This OP stuff doesn't matter - invading Iraq wasn't really about WMDs, it can be justified purely on X Y Z.
B: X Y Z also applies to North Korea. Either invading Iraq was wrong or not invading NK now is wrong.
A: That's not the same, they might have WMDs!
B: At the time, Iraq was supposed to have WMDs too.
A: Fine, we really ought to invade NK but we just can't manage it right now.
B: At least you're consistent in advocating that America run around the world invading people. Have you petitioned the U.S. govmt to invade NK yet? If not, why not? According to you invading Iraq was a grave moral imperative.

That's where I saw this going - the truth coming out naturally as a result of calmly clarifying and understanding the other side. Instead you seem to want to bury the other side in a jumble of long emotive paragraphs, never trying to clarify anything, never treating them as rational people, lest it 'embolden the enemy' by 'lending them credibility'.

I've laid out my view, and it hasn't changed anything at all; this thread is still heading toward a 10-page unreadable mess. I don't know what I expected.

[Elfdart]

One can also easily point out that the Army in Tunisia and Egypt had being trained by the US for so long that virtually the entire officer corps was a product of said training. Amazingly said commanders then refused to fire on demonstrators. But I’m sure the US deserves zero credit for that just like everything else it ever possibly can do is pure evil. Especially military assistance programs.

You must be pretty limber to able to pat yourself on the back with one hand, and fap-fap-fap away with the other at the same time. If Uncle Sam's role in training the officers in Tunisia and Egypt explains why they didn't mow down the protesters, then maybe you could explain all those torturers, rapists and mass murderers who graduated from Fort Benning, like the officers of the Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador. Almost all the death squad leaders in El Salvador and Guatemala were trained by the US Army, and to a man, they were far worse than their homegrown counterparts.

Given the long and overwhelming track record of US-trained killers, these officers must have cut class when the subject of slaughtering unarmed protesters came up.

It is not as if it was an either or choice.

I have said many times before on SDN that I am open to ideas for other solutions, but no I've never seen one given that had a remotely realistic chance of either removing Saddam from power, or keeping him military crippled without keeping Iraq economically crippled. Just saying another choice existed isn’t good enough. What was it and how long would it take? Its not like we didn't try to kill him personally a few dozen times right up until the day before the invasion began.

You say that as though the US government has any business meddling in Iraq or any other country. There's always Option C:

Mind your own fucking business!

Sadly, any chance of something like that happened died when the USA won the Spanish-American war.

The circumstances of that and the buildup to the Iraq war were eerily similar.

At the time, Mark Twain suggested that the Stars & Stripes should be replaced by the Skull & Crossbones.

[Samuel]

You must be pretty limber to able to pat yourself on the back with one hand, and fap-fap-fap away with the other at the same time. If Uncle Sam's role in training the officers in Tunisia and Egypt explains why they didn't mow down the protesters, then maybe you could explain all those torturers, rapists and mass murderers who graduated from Fort Benning, like the officers of the Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador. Almost all the death squad leaders in El Salvador and Guatemala were trained by the US Army, and to a man, they were far worse than their homegrown counterparts.

Given the long and overwhelming track record of US-trained killers, these officers must have cut class when the subject of slaughtering unarmed protesters came up.

Because we were training the troopers in Guatemala and El Salvador to kill communists while the officers in Tunisia and Egypt were not trained in counter-insurgancy work and didn't spend an extended period of time dealing with people trying to kill them? The situations were slightly different.

You say that as though the US government has any business meddling in Iraq or any other country. There's always Option C:

Mind your own fucking business!

We need the oil from the gulf and having Iraqi close enough so they could seize it by a quick assault is bad. Normally we would be able to deal with this by supporting the weaker nation, except all the neighboring arab states are ridiculously incompetant. Although it would be interesting to see what would happen if Saddam managed to conquer the gulf states and Saudi Arabia. I think it would be bad... except he sort of needs the money from selling us oil in order to run his war machine and country.

We could always back Iran, but... actually, what is wrong with backing Iran to keep Saddam in line? Sure they aren't good guys, but I'm hard pressed to think of a government in the middle east that truly qualifies.

[Thanas]

^I suggested backing Iran a few posts ago. The response was "ZOMG. THEOCRACY."

[Lonestar]

You must be pretty limber to able to pat yourself on the back with one hand, and fap-fap-fap away with the other at the same time. If Uncle Sam's role in training the officers in Tunisia and Egypt explains why they didn't mow down the protesters, then maybe you could explain all those torturers, rapists and mass murderers who graduated from Fort Benning, like the officers of the Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador. Almost all the death squad leaders in El Salvador and Guatemala were trained by the US Army, and to a man, they were far worse than their homegrown counterparts.

Given the long and overwhelming track record of US-trained killers, these officers must have cut class when the subject of slaughtering unarmed protesters came up.

So your thesis is that the training syllabus that the US School of the Americas in the 70s and 80s is exactly the same as in the 90s and 00s which is when most of the JOs and field grade officers in Tunisia and Egypt would have gotten their training.

(FYI they don't go to training at the School of the Americas. They go to OCS or PLC or staff college or even Universities with Corps of Cadets)

[Thanas]

DP deleted.

[thejester]

Why does it 'become the question' though? If you're assessing the morality of the action shouldn't it be soley down to that action in isolation?

Say what? Are you for real? How is one rule for the US and one rule for others moral? (I note one rule when all other things being compared are equal, and in this case we are comparing threat to others and doing something because "its in the nation's interest.") Because unless they apply the same standards on their own country and allies, that is what is happening. And all I see is an attempt to avoid answering that point when its raised.

Whats good for the geese is good for the gander and all that jazz. It therefore follows if people want to apply selective standards that...

It's not, but that's what not being argued about is it? FWIW I agree with your entire post in that from a moral viewpoint, US foreign policy would be full of hypocrisy, double standards and outright immorality. But in this debate we're arguing about the morality of a single decision - the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Rather than go into a hypothetical scenario, why not look at the actual scenario as outlined by Skimmer:

- Saddam Hussein, regional tyrant, author of two wars that killed 2,000,000+ people in the space of a decade, has been put under sanctions after 1991 to curb the ability of his regime to undertake similar wars in the future. These sanctions are effective but have no effect on his hold on power and are estimated to be killing 50,000 people a year. The sanctions look to continue indefinitely.

- Is ending Hussein's regime by invasion moral?

[mr friendly guy]

It's not, but that's what not being argued about is it? FWIW I agree with your entire post in that from a moral viewpoint, US foreign policy would be full of hypocrisy, double standards and outright immorality. But in this debate we're arguing about the morality of a single decision - the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Rather than go into a hypothetical scenario, why not look at the actual scenario as outlined by Skimmer:

- Saddam Hussein, regional tyrant, author of two wars that killed 2,000,000+ people in the space of a decade, has been put under sanctions after 1991 to curb the ability of his regime to undertake similar wars in the future. These sanctions are effective but have no effect on his hold on power and are estimated to be killing 50,000 people a year. The sanctions look to continue indefinitely.

- Is ending Hussein's regime by invasion moral?

1. That was not the reason given for invading. So the argument boils down to we invaded for the wrong reason, but as luck would have it, it turned out to have the right reason as well. Doable, but already looks dubious.

2. Is ending the regime moral? There are 2 main things to consider.

a. Can it be done without causing more suffering vs keeping it in place.
b. If the plan for doing something sucks, isn't it better to stick to our status quo until we can come up with a better plan? Obviously if Saddam manages to change the status quo, eg if he really got WMDs, then the status quo no longer apply and we have to rethink things. We shouldn't just do something based on the "we must do something mantra." You should only do it if i) it can make things better ii) leaving it alone will make things much worse so we must take the risk.

If it can be done without causing more suffering obviously yes. The problem is, even before invading, from past experiences we can tell there will be collateral damage. There will be losses to soldiers etc. Its already a hard metric to weigh up, and its obvious given how well this was planned they didn't think this through very well.

3. I disagree that it should just be focussed on a single decision. The reasons I have already outlined such as setting a precedent which can lead to other such decisions, and if they aren't willing to subject themselves to their own moral rules, then presumably they have another reason for saying what they do, cough national interest ONLY cough. In which case they should outright state their true reasons so we can debate properly.

Would you have a debate with me, only at the end for me to go hah hah I was just playing Devil's advocate with reasons a,b and c. Here is my true reasons for arguing x. I am sure you wouldn't enjoy having the time wasted, and saying "will you apply the same standards to hypothetical situation Y" is just a quick way of getting the other guy to outright state their true reasons for arguing (of course I would only do this if I suspected the moral/ human rights situation isn't the real reason they are proposing). At least some posters outright stated what they arguing for is because of national interest, so we at least debate from there.

Edit - even if we just focus in on the fake reasons stated for doing a particular action, it won't counter the precedent argument, nor the fact that its immoral to have one standard for one person and one standard for another. It can only at best only prevent debate on the real reasons for doing something.