Is Iraq a noble cause?

NCfan

angelica wrote:

Saddam did NOT control the actions of the United States of America, therefore it is impossible that he can be held accountable for what he does not control. Saddam is 100% responsible for each and everyone of his own actions, however, including the consequences of his actions.

If you confuse basic accountability, and blend the two parties, rather than hold them fully accountable for their respective deeds, the situation will continue to be distorted, rather than understood.

Again, it is the United States of America, solely, that is responsible for leading the invasion and creating, according to NCfan, "a power vacuum", and the self-evident imbalance that exists to this day.

Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.

He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.

At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in and facilitating a regime change. There would have been no need to disband a military that had not taken up arms against the US. There would not have been a three week war in which created the chaos that led to a loss of power. There would have been a much, much smoother transition - which could arguably avoided the entire mess we are facing today.

So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.

It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.

He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.

At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in a facilitating a regime change.

So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.

It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.

But, why couldn't we have left well enough alone?
Iraq was contained.
And though impoverished to some degree, the violence wasn't running rampant in 2002-2003. It is today. Fundamentalism is back in style: that's what happens in an oppressed society. An occupied society. Saddam's Iraq was much more stable, and liberated before we came blasting in March 2003.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Saddam did control his own actions and the consequences of this actions as you said above. He was given every opportunity to avoid war, but that meant he would lose his power, and more than likely get murdered or captured for war crimes.

He was given several chances to come clean about his weapons programs, but continually played games - denying inspectors from access to certain locations/facilities and handing over ambiguous documents. He certainly acted like a man who was hiding something.

At the very least, before we invaded Saddam and his sons were given 24 hours to leave the country. If they had done so, the United States would have had much more legitamacy moving in a facilitating a regime change.

So I don't see how you can't pin this on Saddam. Maybe he thought he was right, but it doesn't really matter. He is the one who oppressed his people for 3 decades. He is the one who created the current hatred that is rampant among the different factions in Iraq. If it wasn't for Saddam pitting Sunnis against Shities and Bathist against non-Bathist - none of this sectarian killing would be going on today.

It is just total distortion to blame this war soley on the US. We took the lid off of a boiling pot, but you don't want to acknowledge those who created the boiling pot - you just want to point the finger at us.

It's quite obvious you don't see how we can't pin this on Saddam. You're looking in the wrong direction. You're overlooking the only thing the Americans control: their own actions. This is a VERY fatal logical flaw, when determining accountability. You are still 100% accountable for invasion and for the mass deaths of your own people, as well as others*, and for the existing imbalance in the region.

*brought about by US actions.

edit: The American people are not, however, responsible for the direct killing and the deaths that non-American people cause due to the imbalance America has caused in the region, because they do not control the actions meted out by others. Each "side" owns their own role in this, 100% as well as America. And of course, each "side" play roles in the other side's views--each influence one another.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Fundamentalism is back in style: that's what happens in an oppressed society. An occupied society.

Exactly. When we cause someone to withdraw in defense, we cause them to shut down and revert to LOWER stages of development. It's the opposite of creating an environment that serves evolution, growth and health.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

It's quite obvious you don't see how we can't pin this on Saddam. You're looking in the wrong direction. You're overlooking the only thing the Americans control: their own actions. This is a VERY fatal logical flaw, when determining accountability. You are still 100% accountable for invasion and for the mass deaths of your own people, as well as others*, and for the existing imbalance in the region.

*brought about by US actions.

edit: The American people are not, however, responsible for the direct killing and the deaths that non-American people cause due to the imbalance America has caused in the region, because they do not control the actions meted out by others. Each "side" owns their own role in this, 100% as well as America. And of course, each "side" play roles in the other side's views--each influence one another.

So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?


I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?


I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.

This is why when women snap and kill their husbands, we hold them accountable. Their lawyers may use all kinds of extenuating circumstances to try to get them out of accountability. In the end, the person who has killed is responsible.

When men abuse their wives, they blame their wives for the beating, such as they 'deserve' it. This is exactly the issue at hand. Abuse, violence, and killing exacted, is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person acting out the violence. Blaming it on the person we are abusing or killing is NEVER, ever acceptable.

I hold Saddam accountable for many things--all of his ugly, horrible, violent and degrading actions. The man has 100% accountability for all the things he's ever done. Just like men who abuse their wives for years--they ARE 100% accountable for any violent and abusive act they perpetuate. 100%, unequivocally.

If this war was in self-defence, basically anyone would understand the need to defend one's self, and the accountability of the US would look VERY different than it does at this point. The situation is very different indeed.

El_Kabong

NCfan wrote:

So if a husband beats his wife over and over and over; and then one day she snaps and kills him - then in your view she is the one who is to blame for his death? Where the hell is his accountability?


I just don't see how you can't put any of the blame on Saddam.

how was saddam 'beating us over and over and over'??? pretty much ever major bad thing he did was w/ US approval, in fact daddy bush and his crew vetoed every single sanction agaisnt iraq until he invaded kuwait

rebornFixer

Its one big terrorist smashing party, and everyone is apparently invited!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070601/wl_afp/iraq


Notably, insurgents are changing sides because they recognize that foreign terrorists are a big part of the current problem in Iraq.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The US got tired of their Saddam puppet so they hanged him...

about as simple and clear cut as it gets...

now they're toasting champagne to fresh crude...

rebornFixer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The US got tired of their Saddam puppet so they hanged him...

about as simple and clear cut as it gets...

now they're toasting champagne to fresh crude...

Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".

RolandTD20Kdrummer

reborncareerist wrote:

Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".

well they sure made him dance nicely from their puppet strings if you will...

rebornFixer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

well they sure made him dance nicely from their puppet strings if you will...

In what way?

rebornFixer

WhiteMaleRat wrote:

Saddam is to blame more than any one person or country, plain and simple.

Saddam is to blame for a lot of things and he certainly shares blame for the current war along with the Americans. angelica is wrong in her simplicity (to borrow her phrase), but I am not convinced that the U.S. invasion had THAT much to do with Saddam per se.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

reborncareerist wrote:

In what way?

don't worry buddy we got your back on Iran...here's some candy....comes to mind

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

Saddam was never an American puppet. He had U.S. support when fighting Iran, but the Iraqi army still got the vast majority of its weapons and training from Soviet bloc and Chinese sources at that time. He made all kinds of bad decisions (including invading Kuwait) that he would never have made had he really been a "U.S. puppet".

maybe an unwilling puppet or led a certain way....

thiink of it in more context:

the cold war was over, congress had cut defense spending b/c there was no big bad commie soviet anymore or anyone close (as us and a few other countries money funded, created and armed groups like al qaeda)....

iraq complaied that kuwait was stealing oil from iraqi oil fields (w/ slanted drilling which was also done on the simpons ) and that they were violating opec quoatas and flooding the market w/ their oil taking away from iraq's....the us said :we do not wish to get involved in arab-arab conflicts"...so they put troops on the border...congress asked the state dept iwhat was goin on, since the adminstration had vetoed every single sanction against iraq would we need to get involved in anything happened...the reply was their was no obligation to do anything....the next day saddam invaded...suddenly there's another big bad boogey man that requires increased defense spending, cutting social programs...they even referenced reports from groups like Amnesty International who they wouldn't even talk to or act on when the reports were presented until....

i guess it comes down to semantics....

Bu2

jlew24asu wrote:

there is alot more to it then that but I wont say this is a false statement

*blinks at the cameras, cross-eyed*

See? This right here is proof, America, that we have to go to war!!

rebornFixer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

don't worry buddy we got your back on Iran...here's some candy....comes to mind

Being disrespectful doesn't make you sound any smarter, pal.

rebornFixer

El_Kabong wrote:

maybe an unwilling puppet or led a certain way....

thiink of it in more context:

the cold war was over, congress had cut defense spending b/c there was no big bad commie soviet anymore or anyone close (as us and a few other countries money funded, created and armed groups like al qaeda)....

iraq complaied that kuwait was stealing oil from iraqi oil fields (w/ slanted drilling which was also done on the simpons ) and that they were violating opec quoatas and flooding the market w/ their oil taking away from iraq's....the us said :we do not wish to get involved in arab-arab conflicts"...so they put troops on the border...congress asked the state dept iwhat was goin on, since the adminstration had vetoed every single sanction against iraq would we need to get involved in anything happened...the reply was their was no obligation to do anything....the next day saddam invaded...suddenly there's another big bad boogey man that requires increased defense spending, cutting social programs...they even referenced reports from groups like Amnesty International who they wouldn't even talk to or act on when the reports were presented until....

i guess it comes down to semantics....

So you're saying that the US SHOULD have gotten involved earlier in this "arab vs. arab" conflict? I am thinking that no matter what I say, you're going to find some way to blame Americans for the invasion of Kuwait.
And what's the point, really? I've lost sight of the real purpose of this thread now, between Roland's uneducated bluster and this tangent about Kuwait.
The simple answer to the question originally posed in this thread is "no". Iraq is not a noble cause, even if down the road civil war is averted and Iraq becomes the next Saudi Arabia.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

reborncareerist wrote:

Being disrespectful doesn't make you sound any smarter, pal.

disrespectful? you got it wrong dude... that was the US talking to Saddam...lol

I thought you would actually get that...

jlew24asu

Bu2 wrote:

*blinks at the cameras, cross-eyed*

See? This right here is proof, America, that we have to go to war!!

I thought it was one of my more vague statements :shrugs: