What if you KNEW there was a God.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is only fair that whatever we can create we should also be able to destroy.

So nothing has intrinsic value to you?

 

[Thanda]

Sorry, I'll concede it was hundreds of thousands rather than millions. Something like 200,000 were killed because of the pointless war he started against Iran: Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and 30,000 in Desert Storm: Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Regardless, my point remains the same. Losses caused just so that the dictator Saddam could stay in power are pointless losses. Any losses in the 3.5 week war to topple Saddam are a necessary blood price to be paid for freedom. My country has paid a large blood price in the cause of freedom too, and we don't consider defeating Nazi Germany etc to be pointless. Why shouldn't good Iraqis have the right to pay a blood price for their freedom too? Regarding those killed by terrorists after the 3.5 week war - giving in to terrorism is not something that we should expect Iraq to do any more than we expected Britain to surrender to the IRA. If you don't see a problem with Iraqis dying in car crashes (and thus, don't call for cars to be banned in Iraq), then there's no reason to tell them they should surrender to terrorists to avoid dying in terrorist attacks.

I have no problem with people liberating themselves from the grips of a dictator. But the operative word is themselves. I live in SA. I am black. There for many years our government was oppression my people. Our people took up arms. Cuba and USSR assisted - America and England (not sure about Australia) for a long time did nothing and in fact sided with the racist government (this had something to do with the cold war). For a long time we fought for our own freedom through both military and diplomatic means. Eventually we achieved our freedom with the aid of the international community. Our country has had a peaceful transition to democracy and we have had largely peaceful elections ever since. Now imagine if the USSR had decided that, to assist us, they would bomb our country into oblivion. What do you imagine South Africa would have looked like today?

 

[Thanda]

So nothing has intrinsic value to you?

If I created something then whatever value it has cannot be intrinsic.

 

[kerravon]

I have no problem with people liberating themselves from the grips of a dictator. But the operative word is themselves.

They DID liberate themselves. The Iraqis rose up in 1991, but were defeated by Saddam's helicopters. In 2003 the free world provided assistance to the freedom-loving Iraqis, and again the Iraqis rose up to join the new Iraqi security forces, now that they had a chance to actually succeed. They did everything right. You should be supporting these people!

I live in SA. I am black. There for many years our government was oppression my people. Our people took up arms. Cuba and USSR assisted - America and England (not sure about Australia) for a long time did nothing and in fact sided with the racist government (this had something to do with the cold war). For a long time we fought for our own freedom through both military and diplomatic means. Eventually we achieved our freedom with the aid of the international community. Our country has had a peaceful transition to democracy and we have had largely peaceful elections ever since. Now imagine if the USSR had decided that, to assist us, they would bomb our country into oblivion. What do you imagine South Africa would have looked like today?

The USA did NOT bomb Iraq to oblivion, so that is a false comparison. The US used the minimum amount of force required to topple the dictator. There is nothing wrong with that, it is the exact correct thing to do. In addition the US did not bomb Kosovo to oblivion. Nor Afghanistan. That's why 85% of Afghans supported having their country being bombed. If you want to suggest that the USSR should have used minimal force to convert SA from a capitalist "dictatorship" to a communist democracy, well, a case can be made for that, although my personal priority was defeating communism before liberating sundry dictatorships, and also there needs to be a debate about which dictatorship to topple first. I am happy to debate that if you like.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I created something then whatever value it has cannot be intrinsic.

I'm not sure you're taking "intrinsic" the way I intended. Let me try explaining myself in a different way:

Say I create something. Later on, I decide to destroy it. Would you ever be justified in saying to me "stop! That thing is too valuable/useful/beautiful/good/etc.! You shouldn't destroy it!"?

 

[LuisDantas]

If I created something then whatever value it has cannot be intrinsic.

One has to ask why this god you believe in would make his creation so much at odds with the scenario that you propose.

Like it or else, people do have an attachment to living and to pursuing happiness. If there is a creator god, he did not make us particularly aware of that nor all that suited to accepting such capricious behavior from him.

In a nutshell, either your god has a serious sadistic streak and is therefore not very respectable at all, or you are grossly misunderstanding him.

 

[Thanda]

I'm not sure you're taking "intrinsic" the way I intended. Let me try explaining myself in a different way:

Say I create something. Later on, I decide to destroy it. Would you ever be justified in saying to me "stop! That thing is too valuable/useful/beautiful/good/etc.! You shouldn't destroy it!"?

I would be justified for my own personal gain/benefit to say that to you. But it would be unjust for me to seek to prevent against your will since what you have created was by your will. Therefore it lives and dies by your will alone.

Please note however that as much as I am entertaining this line of though I do not believe human being die. I believe we simply leave this earth and move on to our next state. This may not be satisfactory to you since you do not believe there is such a state but I am billions of others are quite satisfied with it. So when God takes one of us to the other side we do not consider him a murderer.

 

[kerravon]

They DID liberate themselves. The Iraqis rose up in 1991, but were defeated by Saddam's helicopters.

Note that we're talking somewhere around 150,000 people dying here: 1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't have minded the Iraqis paying that blood price for their freedom, but the trouble is that the uprising achieved absolutely nothing. They paid the huge blood price for nothing at all. They paid a LOT lower blood price in the 3.5-week invasion in 2003. THAT action was such that the blood price was paid for freedom, instead of being completely wasted.

 

[Thanda]

They DID liberate themselves. The Iraqis rose up in 1991, but were defeated by Saddam's helicopters. In 2003 the free world provided assistance to the freedom-loving Iraqis, and again the Iraqis rose up to join the new Iraqi security forces, now that they had a chance to actually succeed. They did everything right. You should be supporting these people!

The uprising came AFTER the US had invaded Iraq. This is no surprise. There is always someone in any country who thinks they can do a better Job than the current president and so uprisings in Iraq were to be expected after the US defeated Saddam. And the fact that only fifty percent of Iraqi's are happy with the Iraq they have now proves my point about the value of stability. Half the Iraqi's didn't care who was in power since they know most governments are corrupt regardless of who they are headed by. They cared that their children could go to school day after day. They cared that they families were safe.

Sadam did kill many people but as you have pointed out he did so at specific times. There is an uprising, he kills some people. No uprising, nobody dies. There was a predictability and stability to their country however tenuous. But now Iraqi's don't know if their children will come back alive from school. They don't know if they will be alive tomorrow. They live in constant fear. I know what I would choose if given the option - I would be with the 50% who are not happy with the new Iraq.

The USA did NOT bomb Iraq to oblivion, so that is a false comparison. The US used the minimum amount of force required to topple the dictator. There is nothing wrong with that, it is the exact correct thing to do. In addition the US did not bomb Kosovo to oblivion. Nor Afghanistan. That's why 85% of Afghans supported having their country being bombed. If you want to suggest that the USSR should have used minimal force to convert SA from a capitalist "dictatorship" to a communist democracy, well, a case can be made for that, although my personal priority was defeating communism before liberating sundry dictatorships, and also there needs to be a debate about which dictatorship to topple first. I am happy to debate that if you like.

Why would you the defeat of communism above the freedom and dignity of human beings. So what if people want to practice different politics or run the economy differently? Why are you intolerant?

This makes no sense to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would be justified for my own personal gain/benefit to say that to you. But it would be unjust for me to seek to prevent against your will since what you have created was by your will. Therefore it lives and dies by your will alone.

You're operating by a definition of "unjust" that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything that I recognize.

Please note however that as much as I am entertaining this line of though I do not believe human being die. I believe we simply leave this earth and move on to our next state. This may not be satisfactory to you since you do not believe there is such a state but I am billions of others are quite satisfied with it. So when God takes one of us to the other side we do not consider him a murderer.

By that measure and with those assumptions, nobody's a murderer.

 

[Augustus]

I totally disagree. It's democracy may not be the world's best, but it's a damned sight better than it was when Saddam was getting 100% of the vote. Also note that the Iraqis have more parties to choose from than the US does, and a higher turnout rate too. So by some measures Iraq's democracy is SUPERIOR to the US. Regardless, Utopia is not something I ever expected to achieve overnight (or ever), and I'd like you to provide evidence that even 1% of the pro-war were expecting overnight Utopia.

Utopian - a policy with a stated goal that is all but impossible to achieve. i.e. the idea that Western liberal democracy is a universal tendency that can magically spring up out of thin air if we simply remove a dictator.

Number of political parties and voter turnout are about as relevant in determining how 'democratic' a country is as the number of McDonalds restaurants (i.e not very). People in the West have very little experience of living in a developing democracy, if they did they might not be so gung ho about how easy it is to achieve. You should try it, will be a bit of an eye opener as to why democracy can't be 'fast-tracked'.

Also, you do realise that ISIS are actually reasonably popular in many areas because, despite their horrific brutality, some semblance of order is better than chaos.

Yes I do, and so do about 50% of Iraqis, according to opinion polls. If I were Iraqi, I'd be in that 50% category too, and I would challenge you to explain why I shouldn't be allowed to vote for my government and should instead be subjected to the threat of having my tongue cut out by my own government. I would make that same argument to the immoral 50% of Iraq who don't give a damn about me having my tongue chopped out too.

Even if those polls are remotely accurate, which they are very unlikely to be if you understand polling methodology, it still means about 50% think that it is worse. Probably excluding the gay men who have been thrown off buildings, those who were tortured to death with drills by regime linked death squads, people crucified for opposing ISIS, etc. as they are already dead.

So was it worth hundreds of thousands of additional deaths, the destruction of many cities, ISIS and the empowerment of Iran as well as a trillion dollars to get a 'draw' in an opinion poll?

Which is exactly what we did.

Help does not mean 'invade country and occupy it for 10 years whilst trying to micromanage their political system'.

Again. They are. Their democracy has fielded forces to protect their freedom. What more do you want them to do? They are shedding blood and treasure to maintain their freedom. The West only provides air support and training.

Their forces basically shat it and abandoned their Western bought and paid for weapons to ISIS. Their 'freedom' is mostly being protected by Kurdish communists, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iranian funded and assisted sectarian militias.

Basically, most people live in an area run by either Kurdish militias, ISIS or Iran and your tax money is de facto being spent on arming ISIS and helping improve Iran's regional power.

Wouldn't you prefer to spend it on education and healthcare?

That is a misnomer. It is not "white man's burden" it is "free people's burden". South Korea has just as much responsibility to help the Iraqis obtain freedom as France does. And indeed, that is exactly what happened. The South Koreans did in fact help out. It was the white French who turned a blind eye to institutionalized rape, not the South Koreans.

Neoconservatist ideologues basically said 'it is the responsibility of the West to spread democracy by force', sounds like 'white man's burden to me'

I'm amazed that there's a single person who would conclude an argument with "and that's why we should have let Uday abduct and rape Iraqi women for as long as he felt horny".

The idea that if something is wrong, it is ALWAYS better to do something than nothing is a naive way of thinking. (Like when your computer has a minor problem, so you try to fix it but end up breaking it completely.Or when the doctor says it's just a cold, go home and get some rest but someone demands pointless antibiotics just because they think 'if sick must take medicine').

Sometimes there is nothing you can do, no matter how much you would like to do something. Sometimes doing nothing is the better than making things worse by doing something.

The hubris of man.

So if you saw a woman being raped outside your house, you would refuse to intervene, or even call the police, and just call out to her "sorry love, can't help, the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? And if it is YOUR daughter being raped, you want me to say the same thing to her?

That you confuse a simple situation with straightforward solution, a small number of relevant variables and a short timeframe, for a complex situation with no straightforward solution, an enormous number of variables and a long timeframe is why you don't really get it.

In the former, a centralised top-down solution has a high chance of success, in the latter, a centralised, top-down solution doesn't. See, for example, the failure of the Soviet Economy.

The consequences of the actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are ALL a case of replacing an enemy dictator with a friendly democracy. It is YOU who isn't to be absolved from the fact that you are an accessory to institutionalized (legal!!!) rape and torture and murder and mutilation. That was the consequences of YOUR action - opposing freedom.

Which of these countries has a friendly democracy? Must have missed that part. Taliban, Islamist and tribal militias, ISIS, Iran, civil war, growing regional instability and violence exported to other countries I can see.

Where are the friendly democracies?


Just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating 'they're just accessories to rape, accessories to rape I tell thee' when people point out that things aren't really going to swimmingly in the countries you 'liberated'.

What would actually have to happen before you considered these 'liberations' a failure btw? Or is it axiomatic that they were a success because of your preconceived ideological reasons?

 

[kerravon]

The uprising came AFTER the US had invaded Iraq. This is no surprise. There is always someone in any country who thinks they can do a better Job than the current president and so uprisings in Iraq were to be expected after the US defeated Saddam. And the fact that only fifty percent of Iraqi's are happy with the Iraq they have now proves my point about the value of stability. Half the Iraqi's didn't care who was in power since they know most governments are corrupt regardless of who they are headed by. They cared that their children could go to school day after day. They cared that they families were safe.

They were never safe under Saddam. If Uday thought you were cute, you could be abducted and raped. You talk below about "freedom and dignity of human beings". Where were your crocodile tears when Iraqis did not have these things under Saddam?

Sadam did kill many people but as you have pointed out he did so at specific times. There is an uprising, he kills some people. No uprising, nobody dies. There was a predictability and stability to their country however tenuous. But now Iraqi's don't know if their children will come back alive from school. They don't know if they will be alive tomorrow. They live in constant fear. I know what I would choose if given the option - I would be with the 50% who are not happy with the new Iraq.

The 50% of Iraqis who supported the action, and the 85% of Afghans who did - are these people stupid, wanting to (allegedly) live in "constant fear"? Did you do a survey of the Iraqi people to see if they lived in constant fear? Even people in Basrah?

Why would you the defeat of communism above the freedom and dignity of human beings.

I don't believe that SA would be free under communist rule. Regardless, that is not the reason why my priority was defeating communism. Perhaps you're too young to remember the Cold War, but I wasn't. I lived on an earth where it was completely unknown whether the world would be completely destroyed by nuclear war. That was BY FAR the biggest threat to the existing (and future) free world. In the same way that we allied with the USSR against the Nazis during WW2, it was necessary to ally with anyone at all (like Saudi Arabia) in an attempt to defeat this existential threat. Western Europe was also in danger of becoming like Eastern Europe, ie communist slavery. Protecting the free West from communist slavery was absolutely the highest priority. Note that the Baltics only got NATO protection in 2004. The war in Iraq was actually earlier than I would have done it if it hadn't been for 9/11 speeding up the process.

So what if people want to practice different politics or run the economy differently? Why are you intolerant?

If people (like the Venezuelans or South Africans) democratically elect communist-like governments into power, that's their choice. The Free World no longer has an existential threat from communists. If people want to dig their own grave, that's their choice (so long as it is done via a democratic vote, not dictatorship).

This makes no sense to me.

If this post doesn't clear that up for you, let me know and I'll try to explain my position.

 

[Thanda]

You're operating by a definition of "unjust" that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything that I recognize.

Okay

By that measure and with those assumptions, nobody's a murderer.

Murderer's are those who intentionally and wrongfully send people out of this world that they did not create. Since no one this earth created anyone then that means anyone taking a life intentionally and with no valid reason is a murderer. The term murder has never meant that they victim ceases to have all existence in the after life.

 

[Thanda]

They were never safe under Saddam. I Uday thought you were cute, you could be abducted and raped. You talk below about "freedom and dignity of human beings". Where were your crocodile tears when Iraqis did not have these things under Saddam?

Who is Uday? And most people would prefer that odd rape to the car bomb killing entire families. However bad things were under Iraq they are undeniably worse now. I would have ventured to go into Iraq in the days of Saddam. I would not dare do so now.

The 50% of Iraqis who supported the action, and the 85% of Afghans who did - are these people stupid, wanting to (allegedly) live in "constant fear"? Did you do a survey of the Iraqi people to see if they lived in constant fear? Even people in Basrah?

If they don't live in constant fear with the death and devastation they have been experiencing and the advance of ISIS then I consider them irrational

I don't believe that SA would be free under communist rule. Regardless, that is not the reason why my priority was defeating communism. Perhaps you're too young to remember the Cold War, but I wasn't. I lived on an earth where it was completely unknown whether the world would be completely destroyed by nuclear war. That was BY FAR the biggest threat to the existing (and future) free world. In the same way that we allied with the USSR against the Nazis during WW2, it was necessary to ally with anyone at all (like Saudi Arabia) in an attempt to defeat this existential threat. Western Europe was also in danger of becoming like Eastern Europe, ie communist slavery. Protecting the free West from communist slavery was absolutely the highest priority. Note that the Baltics only got NATO protection in 2004. The war in Iraq was actually earlier than I would have done it if it hadn't been for 9/11 speeding up the process.

Now you're putting the cart before the horse. You are telling me that you wanted Communism defeated because you were afraid of nuclear war. But the fact is there was a threat of nuclear war because you wanted to defeat communists. So the question remains - why were you and the "Free World" intolerant of a different economic and political model? It was this intolerance between the capitalists and the communists that caused a threat of nuclear war. It is not as if Russia woke up one day and declared "We're Going to blast the world with nuclear weapons if everybody doesn't become a communist".

Sorry I am not sold about the West's "Righteousness" in the cold war. And I am certainly do sold about the idea that it was more important to defeat communism that to give people their freedom and dignity under what ever political form they choose (even a monarchy if they wish).

If people (like the Venezuelans or South Africans) democratically elect communist-like governments into power, that's their choice. The Free World no longer has an existential threat from communists. If people want to dig their own grave, that's their choice (so long as it is done via a democratic vote, not dictatorship).

I doubt there would ever have been an existential threat if the west hadn't been intolerant of communism.

 

[kerravon]

Utopian - a policy with a stated goal that is all but impossible to achieve. i.e. the idea that Western liberal democracy is a universal tendency that can magically spring up out of thin air if we simply remove a dictator.

That is EXACTLY what happened. People like you said that countries like Japan and Germany, or ethnic Chinese, or Arabs, "couldn't handle democracy and needed a dictator". That was and is a complete lie. It was possible that after liberating Iraq, that there would be 0 political parties rising up, and that everyone insisted they wanted Saddam or one of his minions back in charge. That did NOT happen. Instead we saw a phenomenal 300+ parties spring up, and a huge turnout to elections. That's a DAMN GOOD start!

Number of political parties and voter turnout are about as relevant in determining how 'democratic' a country is as the number of McDonalds restaurants (i.e not very).

Nonsense. It's a perfectly valid measure, even if it's not the ONLY measure.

People in the West have very little experience of living in a developing democracy,

People in the West also have very little experience of having their tongue cut out LEGALLY by their own government. So?

if they did they might not be so gung ho about how easy it is to achieve.

Show me evidence of even 1% of the pro-war saying that it was an easy job?

You should try it, will be a bit of an eye opener as to why democracy can't be 'fast-tracked'.

You should first try having your tongue cut out, and being raped by your own government.

Also, you do realise that ISIS are actually reasonably popular in many areas because, despite their horrific brutality, some semblance of order is better than chaos.

I don't know where you're getting your statistically valid opinion polls from, but yes, every country has idiots, including my country, so I don't expect Iraq to be perfect.

Even if those polls are remotely accurate, which they are very unlikely to be if you understand polling methodology,

The polls are pretty consistent, and I do understand polling, and it is the best way we have of gauging opinion. What alternative are you using? Completely fabricating numbers?

it still means about 50% think that it is worse.

Yes. So? Don't you think that's an interesting figure? Why is it 50/50 instead of 99/1 one way or the other?

Probably excluding the gay men who have been thrown off buildings, those who were tortured to death with drills by regime linked death squads, people crucified for opposing ISIS, etc. as they are already dead.

Those who rose up in 1991 are similarly dead, so don't turn up in opinion polls.

So was it worth hundreds of thousands of additional deaths, the destruction of many cities, ISIS and the empowerment of Iran as well as a trillion dollars to get a 'draw' in an opinion poll?

Absolutely. Now we're in a position to change that 50/50 to 99/1 in favor of being aligned with the free world. After 9/11, it is absolutely essential that we change worldviews in the Middle East such that another 9/11 is completely unthinkable. It's not unthinkable while ever Arabs are 50% opposed to the free world. The Afghans aren't, but the Arabs (at least in Iraq), are.

Help does not mean 'invade country and occupy it for 10 years whilst trying to micromanage their political system'.

Yes it does. That is the EXACT help that they REQUIRED in order to gain their freedom.

Their forces basically shat it and abandoned their Western bought and paid for weapons to ISIS.

Yes, their forces continue to need help. So what? The American "revolutionaries" required external help for years.

Their 'freedom' is mostly being protected by Kurdish communists, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iranian funded and assisted sectarian militias.

I consider it to be offensive to say that the indigenous Iraqi volunteer forces are Iranian stooges. They are not. They are Arabs who believe in standing up for freedom. I have no idea why you choose to denigrate these good Arab Muslims who are putting their lives on the line for freedom.

Basically, most people live in an area run by either Kurdish militias, ISIS or Iran

Complete nonsense. The vast bulk of the population are living under areas run by the Iraqi government.

and your tax money is de facto being spent on arming ISIS and helping improve Iran's regional power.

No, my tax money is being spent on assisting Iraqis to keep as much territory as possible under control of the democratic government. I support this use of my tax money. It's the best foreign aid that can be given.

Wouldn't you prefer to spend it on education and healthcare?

No, I find it extremely distasteful that human beings should be living as effectively slaves under a cruel dictator. When my grandchildren ask me "what did you do when there was still state-slavery in the world?", I want to be able to answer "absolutely everything that was in my power". I am very happy that Iraq's oil revenue is now being spent on helping the Iraqi people with regards to freedom/education/healthcare instead of on Saddam's palaces.

Neoconservatist ideologues basically said 'it is the responsibility of the West to spread democracy by force', sounds like 'white man's burden to me'

I'm a neocon, and I'm telling you point blank that I believe South Korea has the same burden to spread freedom as France does, regardless of whether you consider South Korea to be part of the "West". Why don't you ASK (not TELL) some other neocon besides me, whether they think France and South Korea have equal obligation?

The idea that if something is wrong, it is ALWAYS better to do something than nothing is a naive way of thinking. (Like when your computer has a minor problem, so you try to fix it but end up breaking it completely.Or when the doctor says it's just a cold, go home and get some rest but someone demands pointless antibiotics just because they think 'if sick must take medicine').

I never stated that as my position. The only position I am stating is that the 2003 Iraq war was the absolute right thing to do. Just as the Afghan war was. You can see my reasoning outlined here:

Anti-Subjugator: Afghan War
Anti-Subjugator: Iraq War

There are times when it is appropriate to do nothing, e.g. I wouldn't have invaded USSR which could have triggered a nuclear war.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do, no matter how much you would like to do something. Sometimes doing nothing is the better than making things worse by doing something.

In the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Korea, Grenada, Panama etc etc there was and is something that could and was done.

The hubris of man.

Perhaps it is you that has the hubris by insisting we can't help Uday's victims get justice.

That you confuse a simple situation with straightforward solution, a small number of relevant variables and a short timeframe, for a complex situation with no straightforward solution, an enormous number of variables and a long timeframe is why you don't really get it.

It is you who doesn't get that protecting women from rape is as equally true of individuals as it is of groups, or nation-states.

In the former, a centralised top-down solution has a high chance of success, in the latter, a centralised, top-down solution doesn't. See, for example, the failure of the Soviet Economy.

Straw man. I'm not saying that the Soviet economy was sound. I'm saying that regardless of whether we are talking about Iraq or Australia, democracy in both places is the best way to protect human rights, especially in the long term.

Which of these countries has a friendly democracy? Must have missed that part. Taliban, Islamist and tribal militias, ISIS, Iran, civil war, growing regional instability and violence exported to other countries I can see.

Where are the friendly democracies?

You really can't see that Afghanistan is a friendly democracy? Yes, they have some terrorism in Afghanistan. Same as Britain had terrorism from the IRA. But in both cases, Britain and Afghanistan have governments that are absolutely allies. Have you bothered to listen to anything Ashraf Ghani (democratically-elected Afghan president) has said?

Just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating 'they're just accessories to rape, accessories to rape I tell thee' when people point out that things aren't really going to swimmingly in the countries you 'liberated'.

You are the one who closed your eyes saying "everything was fine under Saddam, leave him, leave him, even if he rapes, don't worry, just leave him in power".

What would actually have to happen before you considered these 'liberations' a failure btw?

99% of Iraqis saying they loved Saddam, and if we had absolute certainty that Saddam had no WMD. If that was the case, I would have preferred liberating someone else, like Iran or North Korea.

Or is it axiomatic that they were a success because of your preconceived ideological reasons?

Note that if we cannot turn the Arab dictators into friendly democracies, then we need to turn the Middle East into a glass desert to prevent another 9/11. So anything that staves off nuclear extinction is cool in my book.

 

[kerravon]

Who is Uday?

Uday was Saddam Hussein's son, who was even more sadistic than Saddam himself.

And most people would prefer that odd rape to the car bomb killing entire families.

No, that is not true. We know that 50% of Iraqis supported the 2003 war, even knowing that terrorists (not the Americans) would violently object to western-style freedom. Ditto for Afghanistan where 85% are willing to pay the price required for freedom.

However bad things were under Iraq they are undeniably worse now.

No, it is not undeniable. 50% of Iraqis deny it which is why they supported the war.

I would have ventured to go into Iraq in the days of Saddam. I would not dare do so now.

Well, 50% of Iraqis disagree. Just as 85% of Afghans do. Regardless, if you don't think freedom is worth fighting for, all that does is put you into the other 50% of Iraq and into the 15% of Afghans.

If they don't live in constant fear with the death and devastation they have been experiencing and the advance of ISIS then I consider them irrational

So are Americans irrational for not fearing the death from car accidents and gun deaths? Should they call for a Saddam-like dictator to save them?

Now you're putting the cart before the horse. You are telling me that you wanted Communism defeated because you were afraid of nuclear war. But the fact is there was a threat of nuclear war because you wanted to defeat communists. So the question remains - why were you and the "Free World" intolerant of a different economic and political model?

I am willing to test a stupid political/economic model, so long as it is done on a small island which we can bail out later, and it doesn't have accompanying human rights abuses. This was FAR from the case in the Cold War.

It was this intolerance between the capitalists and the communists that caused a threat of nuclear war. It is not as if Russia woke up one day and declared "We're Going to blast the world with nuclear weapons if everybody doesn't become a communist".

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what the Soviets were doing during the Cold War. They were using violence to try to spread a non-humanist dogma. If they could have nuked the capitalist countries out of existence without reprisals, they may well have done exactly that, given that they considered us to be evil.

Sorry I am not sold about the West's "Righteousness" in the cold war.

You're also not sold about the West's righteousness in ending Saddam's holocaust, so I can't say I'm surprised.

And I am certainly do sold about the idea that it was more important to defeat communism

See above.

that to give people their freedom and dignity under what ever political form they choose (even a monarchy if they wish).

You were unwilling to do this when it came to Iraq. You expect them to live under a cruel dictator. I bet you, like Nelson Mandela, thought Gaddafi was a great guy too, even though he oppressed his population for decades.

I doubt there would ever have been an existential threat if the west hadn't been intolerant of communism.

You're blaming the victim here. None of those Eastern European countries wanted to live under communist slavery. Finding out a way of freeing them (and ensuring no other countries got the same result) was exactly the right thing to do. I couldn't see a way of doing it without the risk of nuclear war, but eventually we won via other means. And as soon as the Eastern Europeans got their human rights protected, the communists were relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

[Thanda]

I consider it to be offensive to say that the indigenous Iraqi volunteer forces are Iranian stooges. They are not. They are Arabs who believe in standing up for freedom. I have no idea why you choose to denigrate these good Arab Muslims who are putting their lives on the line for freedom.

Do you consider it equally offensive to describe the Ukrainian separatists as Russian stooges?

 

[kerravon]

Do you consider it equally offensive to describe the Ukrainian separatists as Russian stooges?

Absolutely. I have no doubt at all that the nutcases in Eastern Ukraine are expressing their own opinion freely when they say they would rather be allied with Russia than the West. They are NOT doing that under Russian duress, they really believe it. Crimea too. My opinion is thus different from that of most countries in the world. I would divide Ukraine into East and West, and allow East Ukraine to merge with Russia the same way that Crimea did. That way the non-nutcases in West Ukraine can choose to join NATO for protection.

 

[Thanda]

No, that is not true. We know that 50% of Iraqis supported the 2003 war, even knowing that terrorists (not the Americans) would violently object to western-style freedom. Ditto for Afghanistan where 85% are willing to pay the price required for freedom.

Please stop bringing up Afghanistan. No one (or at least not me) has any problem with the US going into Afghanistan regardless of the opinion polls. America was attacked and they retaliated. Most people would deem that fair.

No, it is not undeniable. 50% of Iraqis deny it which is why they supported the war.

If this 50% is so significant to you why didn't America just arm the opposition and provide air support? That way it would have been the Iraqi's freeing themselves and not the Americans?

So are Americans irrational for not fearing the death from car accidents and gun deaths? Should they call for a Saddam-like dictator to save them?

Americans can get people tried in court for wrongful death and have a good chance of getting a conviction. What recourse do the Iraqi's have in the chaos they are living in?

I am willing to test a stupid political/economic model, so long as it is done on a small island which we can bail out later, and it doesn't have accompanying human rights abuses. This was FAR from the case in the Cold War.

Human Rights are a subjective construct. Some think it is a human right to refuse to pay tax but they still find themselves in Jail in the "Free World".

But you have highlighted the real problem that caused the Cold War: "I am willing". You and the "Free World" have decided you can dictate to other nations how they should run they countries. They are only to run their countries in ways you are "willing" to allow them to. Else they should get ready to be bombed.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what the Soviets were doing during the Cold War. They were using violence to try to spread a non-humanist dogma. If they could have nuked the capitalist countries out of existence without reprisals, they may well have done exactly that, given that they considered us to be evil.

Oh, you mean the same way America was and is using violence to spread their "democratic" dogma?

You were unwilling to do this when it came to Iraq. You expect them to live under a cruel dictator. I bet you, like Nelson Mandela, thought Gaddafi was a great guy too, even though he oppressed his population for decades.

I was willing for that to happen to Iraq. If the people want to fight their government and other countries want to support them let them support them. But the operative word is support not doing it for them.

His "oppressed" population is doing a lot worse now. They are now officially a failed state.

 

[kerravon]

Please stop bringing up Afghanistan. No one (or at least not me) has any problem with the US going into Afghanistan regardless of the opinion polls. America was attacked and they retaliated. Most people would deem that fair.

I bring up Afghanistan because it's a great example of people supporting their own country being bombed by America. The fact that Iraq only had 50% versus Afghanistan's 85% is a very interesting fact. We had absolutely no way of knowing this number prior to the 2003 Iraq war, and it is of absolute importance that we figure out a way to make Iraq as good as Afghanistan in that respect.

If this 50% is so significant to you why didn't America just arm the opposition and provide air support?

Excellent question. It would have been great if in 1991 America was able to arm and support the revolutionaries. However, as per many/most revolutions, you don't always get a democracy replacing a dictatorship. See Cuba as an example. Sadr may well have come to power in that scenario. I agree that in future wars we should try to replicate what happened in Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011 - just support local forces from the air.

I also want to see Iran liberated via unconventional means - ie, I would like to see America try liberating one Iranian air base and seeing if they are willing to stage a military coup to topple the Ayatollah. This is very messy and mostly untested warfare though. But it would be fantastic if we could make it work. Liberation on the cheap.

That way it would have been the Iraqi's freeing themselves and not the Americans?

Yes, I absolutely agree that if we have a chance of unloading the burden off of the West and onto locals, that is great. But for Iraq, I wanted a quick war and to be absolutely sure that we get a democracy, not a new dictator. In future liberations (e.g. Iran) I'm willing to take the risk that a new dictator will replace the old one. If that happens, I support supporting different local rebels and trying again.

Americans can get people tried in court for wrongful death and have a good chance of getting a conviction. What recourse do the Iraqi's have in the chaos they are living in?

They have the exact same recourse. If a terrorist in Iraq is caught, he will absolutely be tried and jailed. To the best of the ability of a democratic Iraq, anyway. It was under Saddam that if you got raped by Uday you could not get redress for the crime.

Human Rights are a subjective construct. Some think it is a human right to refuse to pay tax but they still find themselves in Jail in the "Free World".

If it's subjective, why do you claim you were oppressed in the old South Africa? And are you saying that even rape is subjective? ie if Uday rapes an Iraqi woman, that's fine, that's just "their culture"? Is it the "culture" of the rape victim that rape is OK too?

But you have highlighted the real problem that caused the Cold War: "I am willing". You and the "Free World" have decided you can dictate to other nations how they should run they countries. They are only to run their countries in ways you are "willing" to allow them to. Else they should get ready to be bombed.

Absolutely correct. I consider it to be a personal affront to me if a dictator anywhere in the world rapes an innocent woman. Also, you're missing the other side of the coin. Why do you say that I can't dictate to Iraq that rape is unacceptable, but you have no problem at all if Saddam chooses to dictate to the Iraqi people. I consider my dictatorship (no rape allowed) to be far better than Saddam's dictatorship (rape by me is fine). Why do you choose the worst dictator of those 2 choices? Is it because of the color of Saddam's skin? Crimes by brown people don't matter?

Oh, you mean the same way America was and is using violence to spread their "democratic" dogma?

I don't consider democracy to be a dogma. I consider it to be the best practical system we know of to protect human rights.

I was willing for that to happen to Iraq. If the people want to fight their government and other countries want to support them let them support them. But the operative word is support not doing it for them.

We DID support them. We gave them the exact support they required. The Iraqis did the rest (and continue to do so even right up to this exact minute).

His "oppressed" population is doing a lot worse now. They are now officially a failed state.

I consider it was a failed state under Saddam. Since Saddam, things have been on a PATH that has a promising future. No-one ever said it was going to be Switzerland overnight. No-one at all. Not even 1% of the pro-war people.

Also, why did you say "oppressed" when Saddam was doing the oppression, but you don't use those quotes when it was you who you are claiming were oppressed? Under what definition of "oppressed" are you using that makes SA blacks oppressed, but not the Iraqis who were even having their tongues cut out by their own government?