Is Iraq a noble cause?

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

...
Siding with Iraqi homegrown insurgents... sounds like a good idea, right? But, didn't siding with the Mujahadin to fight the Soviet Union sound good in 1980? And didn't providing Saddam Hussein with armaments and military intelligence against Iran sound lik a good idea in 1985?
I don't know... but, from our past track record... I wouldn't jump for joy about this... I mean... what happens when these 'Foriegn Insurgents' are vanquished? Are these Islamic Insurgents with U.S. military trainning and tactics going to get jobs at Wal-Mart... or turn their trainning against Israel... or our troops that remain in Iraq? Remember... we taught the Mujahadin (now doing business as 'al Qaeda') the Hit and Run tactics that are being used against our troops.
...
Also... in more recent times... we sided with Opium Warlords in Afghanistan in 2002... that's panned out pretty good, didn't it?

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

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 i think no matter what i say you will make it into somthing simplistic like 'blame america'....

it depends on what you mean by 'gotten involved' saddam was our friend then, we could've easily prevented the invasion or at least tried...instead we let it happen knowing full well what he was about to do...we let it happen

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

you said he was never a us puppet, i pointed out how we let him invade kuwait so we could justify increasing the defense spending among other things

RolandTD20Kdrummer

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

Uneducated bluster my ass man,...Saddam got fucking owned...open your eyes...the US played him like a card..

holy...

NCfan

angelica wrote:

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.

Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.

It would be a "better" analogy if it applied to the situation at hand. It does not.

In your analogy, you are painting Americans as people who just bumbled into Iraq without forethought, which is completely inaccurate. There was time and numerous decisions made that create the accountability in terms of the US invasion. It was not an "accident" where no forethought existed.

And with forethought, intent and deliberately menacing planning-- "shock and awe"--there's a big price to pay. No matter how many analogies you come up with that portray your desire to deny that existing accountability.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Shock and Oil... er...I mean Awe...

How far does 500 billion go in developing viable alternative energy solutions is the (ahem) 500 billion dollar question of the day.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

It would be a "better" analogy if it applied to the situation at hand. It does not.

In your analogy, you are painting Americans as people who just bumbled into Iraq without forethought, which is completely inaccurate. There was time and numerous decisions made that create the accountability in terms of the US invasion. It was not an "accident" where no forethought existed.

And with forethought, intent and deliberately menacing planning-- "shock and awe"--there's a big price to pay. No matter how many analogies you come up with that portray your desire to deny that existing accountability.

Forget Iraq, this senario shows how your logic is flawed period, and how your reasoning does not take into account all factors in a situation.

In your view, if somebody runs a red light and you hit them - you would hypothetically get out of your car and apologize for running into them. Becuase, as you said, YOU are responsible for YOUR own actions.

Okay now to Iraq - just as you say that Saddam is not responsible for the invasion of his country - the driver of the car that ran the red light is not responsible for you hitting them.

In your view, it doesn't matter what Saddam did to "cause" the invasion - he is ultimately not responsible. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the other driver did that "caused" you to hit them, they are not ultimately responsible.

Again, you overlook the "cause" of an action or at least propose that it will always be trumped by individual responsibility. As you have pointed out time and again, nobody can be held accountable for someone else's actions, only the individual.

I see where you are coming from, but it is just plain short-sighted reasoning.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Forget Iraq, this senario shows how your logic is flawed period, and how your reasoning does not take into account all factors in a situation.

In your view, if somebody runs a red light and you hit them - you would hypothetically get out of your car and apologize for running into them. Becuase, as you said, YOU are responsible for YOUR own actions.

Okay now to Iraq - just as you say that Saddam is not responsible for the invasion of his country - the driver of the car that ran the red light is not responsible for you hitting them.

In your view, it doesn't matter what Saddam did to "cause" the invasion - he is ultimately not responsible. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the other driver did that "caused" you to hit them, they are not ultimately responsible.

Again, you overlook the "cause" of an action or at least propose that it will always be trumped by individual responsibility. As you have pointed out time and again, nobody can be held accountable for someone else's actions, only the individual.

I see where you are coming from, but it is just plain short-sighted reasoning.

The fact remains that the United States of America owns it's actions. No one controls the actions of another. Period. A calculated and carefully executed plan, considered and executed in view of the world speaks for itself.

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

Here is a better analogy for you. If I run a red light and you hit me, are you responsible for hitting me? I would be the one charged with a crime, not you - even though as you would say - you are the one responsible.

...
Here, let's get this analogy to fit...
You intentionally run the red light in your blatant disregard for what a red light stands for.
Angelica intentionally aims her car at you in order to enforce what the red light is supposed to stand for.
You are both at fault... you because of your blatant disregard and Angelica because she is enforcing the law at her descrection.
...
You analogy is based upon accidental actions... your not paying attention and incidentally runig a red light and Angelica's misfortune of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Now, fit this into the point you are trying to make.

angelica

Cosmo wrote:

...
Here, let's get this analogy to fit...
You intentionally run the red light in your blatant disregard for what a red light stands for.
Angelica intentionally aims her car at you in order to enforce what the red light is supposed to stand for.
You are both at fault... you because of your blatant disregard and Angelica because she is enforcing the law at her descrection.
...
You analogy is based upon accidental actions... your not paying attention and incidentally runig a red light and Angelica's misfortune of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Now, fit this into the point you are trying to make.

And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.

Cosmo

angelica wrote:

And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.

...
Yeah.. you're right.
Just because you see a crime take place... it is not up to you to inflict your own personal form of justice... i.e. witnessing a traffic violation and deciding on your own that the offender must die.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

I would agree with this if freedom and democracy weren't directly related to economic interests. They both go hand in hand.

Please elaborate.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.

It's funny, becuase the law doesn't see it that way. If a person runs a red light and gets creamed, the driver who hit the red-light-runner is not charged. You have some nutty logic.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

The fact remains that the United States of America owns it's actions. No one controls the actions of another. Period. A calculated and carefully executed plan, considered and executed in view of the world speaks for itself.

The same thing can be said for Saddam and his Bathist thugs... hypocrisy!

angelica

NCfan wrote:

It's funny, becuase the law doesn't see it that way. If a person runs a red light and gets creamed, the driver who hit the red-light-runner is not charged. You have some nutty logic.

If a person deliberately tries to run down the person who ran the red light, the law would most definitely hold that person accountable.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

If a person deliberately tries to run down the person who ran the red light, the law would most definitely hold that person accountable.

Okay, I didn't view the situation as intentionally running down the person who ran the light. I saw the situation as being unavoidable. That is much the way I see Iraq, Iran and other situations. It is unavoidable for us to get involved in my view. I guess that is where we disagree.

To me, after 9/11 we had every right to press Saddam to come clean on his weapons program. If he deliberately tried to continue to keep his program in secrecy by denying access and playing games - then in my view we HAD to act. What are we supposed to do, say - okay, ha ha h that was a good one Saddam - making our inspectors wait outside this facility for 6 hours before you let us in... or sending us pages and pages of ambiguos documents that only fuel our suspisions and leave out important information.

Are we just supposed to walk away after Saddam of all people leads in circles for years? Hell no, the onus was on him. A more powerful entity had cast the spotlight on him and his regime for acting out of form. He needed to rise to the ocasion of risk losing it all. It was his choice!

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Okay, I didn't view the situation as intentionally running down the person who ran the light. I saw the situation as being unavoidable. That is much the way I see Iraq, Iran and other situations. It is unavoidable for us to get involved in my view. I guess that is where we disagree.

I didn't view your analogy as relevent, because it portrayed Americans as though they did not have a planned calculated choice. So I did not buy into your analogy. I did buy into Cosmo's version of it, that analogously portrayed Americans as the other driver, who deliberately ran down the first driver.

To me, after 9/11 we had every right to press Saddam to come clean on his weapons program. If he deliberately tried to continue to keep his program in secrecy by denying access and playing games - then in my view we HAD to act. What are we supposed to do, say - okay, ha ha h that was a good one Saddam - making our inspectors wait outside this facility for 6 hours before you let us in... or sending us pages and pages of ambiguos documents that only fuel our suspisions and leave out important information.

Are we just supposed to walk away after Saddam of all people leads in circles for years? Hell no, the onus was on him. A more powerful entity had cast the spotlight on him and his regime for acting out of form. He needed to rise to the ocasion of risk losing it all. It was his choice!

You continue to give yourself rights that don't exist in reality. I understand basic human interaction, interaction-imbalances that indicate illness, and power plays, and I can see through any justifications. It sounds like you are not owning any sense of mistake at all, which is concerning to say the least.

The problem with not learning from this is that when humans continue to hold to these faulty thought processes, we have more of the same power escalations to look forward to.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

I didn't view your analogy as relevent, because it portrayed Americans as though they did not have a planned calculated choice. So I did not buy into your analogy. I did buy into Cosmo's version of it, that analogously portrayed Americans as the other driver, who deliberately ran down the first driver.



You continue to give yourself rights that don't exist in reality. I understand basic human interaction, interaction-imbalances that indicate illness, and power plays, and I can see through any justifications. It sounds like you are not owning any sense of mistake at all, which is concerning to say the least.

The problem with not learning from this is that when humans continue to hold to these faulty thought processes, we have more of the same power escalations to look forward to.

What rights are you talking about that don't exist? The right to invade a country that we percieve to threaten our own? I'm not sure how you can say we don't have that right, becuase we sure as hell did it. What you fail to understand about human interaction is the one who is the most powerful gets to make the rules. That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

What rights are you talking about that don't exist? The right to invade a country that we percieve to threaten our own? I'm not sure how you can say we don't have that right, becuase we sure as hell did it. What you fail to understand about human interaction is the one who is the most powerful gets to make the rules. That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.

You may fail to perceive that life gives you the consequences for the imbalanced actions you take that go against natural life principles. You always have the right to free choice, however that includes accepting the consequences. When people justify imbalanced and unhealthy choices, and when they get the natural consequences for these choices, they can't understand the cause and effect, because they have denied their own fallacy. To each his/her own.

VINNY GOOMBA

NCfan wrote:

That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.

As much as I'd like the rest of the world to live like us, and by "our rules," that whole idea is very self-defeating. Whether you have the best system or not, people (especially in other countries) do not want to be told how to live.