Discovery of Mass Graves in Iraq

[Edi]

Hear that, all you anti-war liberal commie assholes? By criticizing the rationale for going to war, you are saying that Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to be put on trial for his crimes. You all fucking disgust me.

Explain to me why you think Mange means that?

Maybe because that has been the stock response of rabid Bush apologists and neocon fans whenever justifications for the war have come up for discussion and the WMD and terrorism link claims have been shot down. They tout the "Saddam was evil, therefore it is good that he has been removed", while constantly ignoring that his removal has caused more widespread misery than his staying in power would have. Over a thousand American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, the country's infrasturcture is shot to hell, lawlessness and private armies reign and there is total chaos, 60-80% unemployment rate causes a whole host of other societal issues and there is terrorism all over the place where there was none before.

Tell you what, let's use an analogy: If my little finger develops a gangrene, it obviously needs to be amputated or I'll die of blood poisoning and infection. But you can bet your arse that I would be fucking pissed off at the doctor if he chopped my arm off at the elbow or shoulder just to get that small part.

The sanctions regime and constant surveillance of Iraq combined with Saddam's international pariah status and relatively advanced age were slowly grinding him away, and while life obviously was not good for his opponents, it was (despite the sanctions etc) a whole lot better for the great majority of Iraqis than having their country bombed to shit, occupied and reduced to a lawless hotbed of chaos where dozens of people are killed by indiscriminate car bombs every day. The prewar efforts to marginalize Saddam were the equivalent of cutting off the gangrenous finger, the US invasion and ensuing chaotic, fucked up occupation has been the equivalent of chopping off the limb from the wrist or elbow.

Mange's delivery of his message wasn't too stellar either, the phrasing fairly dripped with smug condescension and an attitude of "See why opposing the war was wrong!". If it was just this thread, I'd not have had such a problem with it, but he has voiced similar views in a similar tone in other threads, and there is only so much of patterns of unsupported bullshit which is directly contradicted by available evidence that I am willing to stand before I tell people what I think of it, rather bluntly. He's a fairly active poster on the N&P forum, so if he should be very familiar with these arguments, it's not exactly like this hasn't been hashed out repeatedly, and yet it seems like nothing has sunk in or he hasn't bothered to do his homework, so he deserves the response he got.

If he'd just posted the article, fine, but he had to add that second post with its superior airs and pretentious self-righteousness, and people who were revbiled for their opposition to the war for sound reasons and who were later proven RIGHT by the aftermath have no reason to take kindly to that.

Edi

Edi

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh please. It's painfully obvious that he's trying to guilt-trip detractors of Operation "Iraqi Freedom" into admitting that good things came from the war, as if we've never admitted it ever before. We have, but that's not the point. The point is that the good things which came from the war were not worth the severe cost we've paid so far.

I agree, but not about Mange trying to guilt trip people. To me it seemed as though Mange was just pointing out at least one of the positives that came from this fuckup.

Seriously, what else would he be trying to say? "Always look on the bright side of life"?

Perhaps, or maybe he was just trying to say "At least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime" which was on topic for this thread. I don't see how that makes Mange a self-righteous asshole like many here are labeling him as.

So instead of trying to justify the war because Saddam is behind bars, he is now trying to deflect focus from the quagmire going on over there. That's much better.

I'd say he's bording on that but then again I try not to read into peoples words on the internet when body language is a significant portion of human communication.

I mean he even said I explained it better than he did, and yet everyone is still "No, you meant it this way you asshole!" I think that's a bit harsh so he didn't deliver his message the way you want him to and it's his fault that you misread him, okay fine but it's over now it has been cleared up so get off his ass.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Maybe because that has been the stock response of rabid Bush apologists and neocon fans whenever justifications for the war have come up for discussion and the WMD and terrorism link claims have been shot down. They tout the "Saddam was evil, therefore it is good that he has been removed", while constantly ignoring that his removal has caused more widespread misery than his staying in power would have. Over a thousand American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, the country's infrasturcture is shot to hell, lawlessness and private armies reign and there is total chaos, 60-80% unemployment rate causes a whole host of other societal issues and there is terrorism all over the place where there was none before.

Alright it's a common tactic used by Bush apologists. I agree with you it doesn't make this situation any better. However, was Mange saying that? Or was he just saying "Hey, at least the bastard that did this crime is going to pay?" Seems pretty obvious to me.....

Tell you what, let's use an analogy: If my little finger develops a gangrene, it obviously needs to be amputated or I'll die of blood poisoning and infection. But you can bet your arse that I would be fucking pissed off at the doctor if he chopped my arm off at the elbow or shoulder just to get that small part.

As would I, but we covered this. I'm on your side about this issue.

The sanctions regime and constant surveillance of Iraq combined with Saddam's international pariah status and relatively advanced age were slowly grinding him away, and while life obviously was not good for his opponents, it was (despite the sanctions etc) a whole lot better for the great majority of Iraqis than having their country bombed to shit, occupied and reduced to a lawless hotbed of chaos where dozens of people are killed by indiscriminate car bombs every day. The prewar efforts to marginalize Saddam were the equivalent of cutting off the gangrenous finger, the US invasion and ensuing chaotic, fucked up occupation has been the equivalent of chopping off the limb from the wrist or elbow.

Yes, I agree

Mange's delivery of his message wasn't too stellar either, the phrasing fairly dripped with smug condescension and an attitude of "See why opposing the war was wrong!". If it was just this thread, I'd not have had such a problem with it, but he has voiced similar views in a similar tone in other threads, and there is only so much of patterns of unsupported bullshit which is directly contradicted by available evidence that I am willing to stand before I tell people what I think of it, rather bluntly. He's a fairly active poster on the N&P forum, so if he should be very familiar with these arguments, it's not exactly like this hasn't been hashed out repeatedly, and yet it seems like nothing has sunk in or he hasn't bothered to do his homework, so he deserves the response he got.

If you've been involved with him in other threads about this issue and he is a Bush apologist then I can understand your position a lot better. However, I haven't been so my point of view is different. All I see is people taking Mange's comment out of context and as I said before when I explained what he was attempting to say he said that's exactly what he meant....yet everyone is still saying "No, you meant this you asshole" I just love when people tell me what I meant even though I disagree with them, don't you?

If he'd just posted the article, fine, but he had to add that second post with its superior airs and pretentious self-righteousness, and people who were revbiled for their opposition to the war for sound reasons and who were later proven RIGHT by the aftermath have no reason to take kindly to that.

Edi

Then again you may have just taken it out of context and are being a dick. But if you say he's done this before and he is a Bush apologist then I'll take your word for it. Just from my point of view I didn't see that.......

[Korvan]

Assuming Saddam gets a fair trial, there's not a small chance that the charges against him won't stick. I mean, I know he did it, you know he did it, hell, the whole damn world knows he did it, but proving it in a court of law is another thing entirely.

A lot of this stuff happened decades ago and I'd bet most of the witnesses have since "disappeared". If Saddam was smart (questionable), he'd not leave any trail to connect him to any atrocitites. I haven't been following the Bosnian situation too closely, but didn't Milosivich end up beating the rap? And the only thing they could pin on Capone was tax evasion.

If Saddam does beat the rap, maybe they should just let him go... smack dab in the middle of the Kurdish north... with no bodyguard.

[Mange]

I haven't been following this thread and I had no idea my comment would become so inflammatory. What I meant to say was exactly what I wrote and what Kamakazie Sith put more clear: that I thought it was a good thing that Saddam would be put on trial for the deeds he committed. That's one of the few positive things that has come out as a result of the invasion. At the time the invasion took place, I supported it (a very unpopular view in Sweden at the time) as I genuinely thought that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass-destruction. Today we know that this wasn't the case, he didn't have any WMD (except for a single rusty dismantled SCUD missile hidden under a soccer stadium) and Iraq today is a quagmire. I don't fully believe that the administration lured the American people into the world, I simply believe the case was faulty intelligence and that is why the CIA and FBI must be reformed so that this won't happen again. It's also a threat to the National Security to have an intelligence service that misinterprets intelligence and stockpiles hundreds of audio tapes. In one of the report that was published last week (I've forgotten the name, I'll return when I've found it), the conclusion was made that Saddam let on that he did have WMD in order to intimidate Iran. To make myself a bit more clear about what I think are the only positive outcomes of the war:
* that Saddam Hussein is put on trial. I think that the world should act decisively against all dictators that commits acts of genocide as those regimes IMO have lost their legitimacy (note: not necessarily by military means).

* that the U.N. sanctions against Iraq has been lifted, something that I don't think could never have been done as long as Saddam Hussein (or his brutal sons) was in power.

Then there is a long list of negatives, but the world isn't black or white, it's grey. I hope, even if the situation doesn't look that way right now, that there is a bright and positive future for Iraq. I'm impressed by the Afghans, which never had democracy, to register and actually went to the polls.
I don't consider myself to be a Bush apologist. I mean, I'm a Swede with no saying in American politics. When Bush was elected, I thought he was a clown (and frankly I thought he was mildly retarded) but I was impressed by his actions following the 9/11 attacks, something that really struck me with grief for all the innocent people killed by a few fanatics. It was an attack on America, but also against the world since many foreigners were killed in the attacks (a.o. at least one Swede). I don't think the employment rate can be blamed on Bush, since, as a former student of political science, I know that politicians really doesn't affect the business cycle. One thing the Bush administration has been handling poorly is outsourcing which is a menace in all industrial countries (here in Sweden as well as in the U.S.). But what the Bush administration also have done is making the financial situation more difficult for the middle-class families. That the minimum wages haven't been raised has also had an adverse effect for certain groups. If I'm to be completely frank, if I had been an American citizen, I wouldn't have voted in the Presidential elections. I would have voted in the Congressional elections though (for a Democratic candidate). Note that I'm not telling you what you should do, but what I would've done (misunderstandings seems to be rather easy, so I thought I should make that clear).

I only think it's a pity that the U.S. withdrew its support from the Shia and Kurd rebellions against Saddam in 1991.

To summarize, I think it was the right decision to go to war with the grounds that were shared with the Congress before the war, but that it's nullified in retrospect because of faulty intelligence. Thus, if the intelligence had been of a proper nature to begin with, the war wasn't needed.

[Mange]

Oh, sorry. It should be "into the war" and not "into the world".

[Mange]

Hear that, all you anti-war liberal commie assholes? By criticizing the rationale for going to war, you are saying that Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to be put on trial for his crimes. You all fucking disgust me.

Explain to me why you think Mange means that?

Maybe because that has been the stock response of rabid Bush apologists and neocon fans whenever justifications for the war have come up for discussion and the WMD and terrorism link claims have been shot down. They tout the "Saddam was evil, therefore it is good that he has been removed", while constantly ignoring that his removal has caused more widespread misery than his staying in power would have. Over a thousand American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, the country's infrasturcture is shot to hell, lawlessness and private armies reign and there is total chaos, 60-80% unemployment rate causes a whole host of other societal issues and there is terrorism all over the place where there was none before.

The infrastructure has been in disrepair since the Gulf War. I believe that the unemployment rate has been fairly high all along in Iraq. According to IRIN (part of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), the unemployment rate in June this year was around 30 % (even if the local unemployment in the South at the time was 60 %. Source: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?Repo ... untry=IRAQ The negative outcomes of the war outweighs the positive, but one mustn't forget that there has been positive results (please see my earlier post).

Tell you what, let's use an analogy: If my little finger develops a gangrene, it obviously needs to be amputated or I'll die of blood poisoning and infection. But you can bet your arse that I would be fucking pissed off at the doctor if he chopped my arm off at the elbow or shoulder just to get that small part.

The sanctions regime and constant surveillance of Iraq combined with Saddam's international pariah status and relatively advanced age were slowly grinding him away, and while life obviously was not good for his opponents, it was (despite the sanctions etc) a whole lot better for the great majority of Iraqis than having their country bombed to shit, occupied and reduced to a lawless hotbed of chaos where dozens of people are killed by indiscriminate car bombs every day. The prewar efforts to marginalize Saddam were the equivalent of cutting off the gangrenous finger, the US invasion and ensuing chaotic, fucked up occupation has been the equivalent of chopping off the limb from the wrist or elbow.

Not to forget that the sanctions made life very difficult for the people of Iraq. Sanctions don't work very well against governments. Besides, you don't need any WMD to control the population.

Mange's delivery of his message wasn't too stellar either, the phrasing fairly dripped with smug condescension and an attitude of "See why opposing the war was wrong!". If it was just this thread, I'd not have had such a problem with it, but he has voiced similar views in a similar tone in other threads, and there is only so much of patterns of unsupported bullshit which is directly contradicted by available evidence that I am willing to stand before I tell people what I think of it, rather bluntly. He's a fairly active poster on the N&P forum, so if he should be very familiar with these arguments, it's not exactly like this hasn't been hashed out repeatedly, and yet it seems like nothing has sunk in or he hasn't bothered to do his homework, so he deserves the response he got.

You're full of shit. I didn't imply that opposing the war was wrong. I meant that you have to recognize that there has been some positive results, even though it's been mostly negative. That Saddam will be put on trial is the best thing that will happen as a result of the war. Yes, I'm an active poster in the N&P forum, even if I mostly stay away from politics I mostly discusses news (and I made what, 530 posts in a year. I disagreed with Mike in the Anything but Bush thread as I think that it's difficult to sell to certain groups of voters. I didn't like his analogy he proposed in that thread since it failed to recognize that people have different preferences in different issues. My response was clumsy for different reasons, but I expanded on that. That's the only time I can recall being on odds with anyone about politics. As political science after all is my minor (well, I've studied political science as much as my major) perhaps I tend to see politics in a different way. I'm sure that other people can agree that politics is complicated and that many people tend to simplify it to extremes. Frankly, I think that people should be able to express their views on politics without being attacked regardless if they support Bush or Kerry. Some people might say that you, by writing "or he hasn't bothered to do his homework" imply that people are not allowed thinking differently than you and should be converted. I'm not saying that, but you distorted what I wrote in much the same way. And calling me a Bush apologist when I've expressed that I think that Kerry can do a much better job in most areas than George W. Bush (which I only think can handle security better than Kerry, but that remains also to be seen).

If he'd just posted the article, fine, but he had to add that second post with its superior airs and pretentious self-righteousness, and people who were revbiled for their opposition to the war for sound reasons and who were later proven RIGHT by the aftermath have no reason to take kindly to that.

I'm sorry if you were offended, but perhaps you should learn how to communicate better. Please point exactly what in my post that was self-righteousness. I explained my views on the war in my earlier post, I don't think the American administration lured the country into war. I think that Bush (and Blair) thought their reasons to go to war was legitimate. I also thought so. The results of the war can also be attributed to extremely poor planning and complete lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq. Regardless, I must say that I'm glad that Saddam is gone and will be tried, that could have been worth going to war for alone if there had been an extreme situation, if there had been a total consensus in the United Nations and with the American allies and if the planning had been excellent. [/i]

[Graeme Dice]

I'm sorry if you were offended, but perhaps you should learn how to communicate better. Please point exactly what in my post that was self-righteousness.

That would be where you add the condescending line:

Just something to think about.

[Mange]

I'm sorry if you were offended, but perhaps you should learn how to communicate better. Please point exactly what in my post that was self-righteousness.

That would be where you add the condescending line:

Just something to think about.

With that line I was saying that there has been a few positive outcomes and that you should acknowledge that. Situations like this shouldn't be polarized into simply good and bad, as they are a bit more complicated than that. I agree, in retrospect the war was a mistake for the following reasons:

* faulty intelligence (although intelligence isn't a perfect science, as shown by the Russians when they tried to copy the Concorde design with blueprints they thought were legit, but in reality was faked which led to the crash of the Russian copu TU-144 in 1973 in Paris).

* failure by the administration to try to verify intelligence

* extremely poor long-term planning

* lack of understanding about the situation in Iraq

As I said before, I don't buy for a second that the administration tricked the U.S. into the war. I believe that the administration believed their material to be legit.

I've also been saying that, despite the overwhelming negative outcomes, some important positive results has been achieved. That the Saddam regime was toppled and that he is facing trial is positive. If he simply had been killed during the war, that would have been far less positive IMO as he would have died as the President of Iraq without never having

[Mange]

Sorry, the last line disappeared somehow, it should read "Without ever having faced trial".

[Gil Hamilton]

No one was really an ally of Iraq, except in the sense that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." No one really liked Saddam, they just thought he was better than the Ayatollah. I don't see that that makes him a US or a Soviet ally in the sense that the US is allied with the UK.

You could say the same thing of the Soviet Union during World War 2. Anyone with a brain didn't like the Soviet Union or that they didn't know full well that the Soviet Union was most certainly not our friend. They were completely matching the principle that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". Yet they were still our allies, and in fact, were one of the Allies (not the capital A) against the Axis.

Point is, it doesn't matter if we didn't like them, we did give them weapons and support against a common enemy, which does make us allies around the time we were doing it.

[The_Last_Rebel]

Why OH WHY didn't George Sr. have Iraq finished off in Desert Storm?
Then we wouldn't be in this mess now--it would have been taken care of a decade ago.

They could have come up with some kind of plan for changing the regime. They had months leading into the Gulf War to come up with one.
There were so many groups in Iraq that wanted to rebel against Hussein it wouldn't have been too hard. You had the Kurds in the north, and the Shiites in the south. Iraq probably would have wound up split into 3 or four little countries, with different ethnic groups in each, if we had helped them when they launched their revolts.

Instead we stopped just when we had done enough to liberate Kuwait, and the rebels got slaughtered like pigs

[Ma Deuce]

Why OH WHY didn't George Sr. have Iraq finished off in Desert Storm?

George Sr. answered that question in his memoirs A World Transformed (which was co-authored by his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft)...

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

Snopes has confirmed the authenticity of this quote.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I dunno, Bush Snr was right in that he couldn't see an exit strategy that would have preserved foreign goodwill and the mandate of the UN, but a key factor was the Vietnam syndrome. The US at that time was still too wary of extending their power.

If recent events is any indication, Saddam would have been caught. Would the US have more or less trouble occupying Iraq back then compared to now? I have no idea either, except that Islamic fundamentalism had not built itself up to the levels we see today. The nationalism and loyalty of the Iraqis to Saddam was probably quite high though.

Hindsight is still 20/20.

TWG