Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 29, 2015, 04:00:23 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM

But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

That's kind of irrelevant to what you're talking about though, isn't it?

One could just as easily throw out statistics of people that didn't realize Iraq had WMDs at all. Hell, it's still a widespread belief that it was just a fabricated excuse to go to war, despite the use of chemical weapons being a decade-long conflict with Iraq.

But it was a fabricated excuse. The pretense was that Iraq had an active WMD program. That was proven to be false. The mission supposedly ended, but that was false, too.

Haha, seriously? The successful mission accomplishment was false? The coalition absolutely steamrolled through Iraq and was very successful in its mission of toppling Saddam's regime. That's what that speech was about. It wasn't saying the entire war was over, just the first mission. And that beings up another point: The first objective of the war was to oust Saddam. It was not to stop a weapons program, it was to get him out. Stopping a potentially active weapons program was one of the objectives, but it wasn't the first, and it wasn't the sole reason for the invasion. By and large the ultimate goal was to address the humanitarian problems in the country.

12 years later. American boots on the ground. Um...

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:27:28 PM

12 years later. American boots on the ground. Um...

Funnily enough, toppling a fascistic regime and lifting the lid on sectarianism in the country--coupled with Iranian-backed insurgency--isn't a two, three or even five year job.

That's a funny way to spell "Mission Accomplished!"

PS: I saw your other reply too >.> I'm off to dinner though, need some food for thought.

I guarantee the condition of the Middle East would be far worse today if that had happened.

And even worse had we let it play out.

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 07:18:47 PM

But does "Mission Accomplished" somehow not imply the end of operations?

No...it doesn't. I have no idea what compels you to think that the first mission of the war constitutes its entirety.

I don't. But why would the Bush administration push that untrue narrative as they so clearly did?

Which is disgusting and pretty much wholly the fault of the CIA and a lack of oversight. And, as much as I hate to say it, our human rights abuses don't even touch Saddam's. Were we wrong to do it? Obviously. But let's have some proportion.

Either way, it damaged the country's image and contributed to the current state of affairs in Iraq and the Middle East. Regardless of how much you'd like to deny it, the ISIS threat can be directly attributed to the invasion of Iraq.

One reason why we're running airstrikes in Syria instead of toppling Assad already, and that's because as much of a bastard as he is, having a government to speak of is better than not having one. It helps to keep the region stable while not creating more enemies for ourselves.

Not true, at least in the case of the UN. Kofi Annan can sit around spewing all the bullshit he wants, but the only organisation with the authority to rule on that issue, the Security Council, hasn't.

They didn't because they're not just going to tell the US that it violated international law. Too big to be punished, and folks like you wouldn't let that happen anyway.

Having a proving record of genocide with chemical weapons, human rights abuses, aggressive expansionism, the ability to cripple the world's economy, not being desirable to co-existence with according to legislation and being a certified fucking psychopath is not neutral.

They were neutral towards the US. It's an independent country's right to be a shitty place to live, but that has fuck all to do with its foreign policy.

Oh for fuck's sake.

YouTube

A majority of the Iraqi population says they feel worse off since the country was invaded. 'Welcomed' my ass.

They might well have done, but I've already told you Bush was enacting the promises of the Clinton Administration. Bush didn't look at his sky-high ratings and just go "Hmmm, Iraq". His decision didn't exist in some political vacuum.

Glad to see Clinton take some blame for once. Not that liberals would let him face any sort of criticism because his wife's a presidential contender now.

This is such a fucking stupid thing to say I can't even wrap my head around it. Just because you don't like my nuance on the issue, it doesn't give you the authority to take it away. To endorse something as a whole is not to endorse it wholesale.

Nuance? More like "let's ignore the lies and abuses that were the basis of invading Iraq in 2003, and change them to more convenient reasons that have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight," while still ignoring the facts indicating that Iraq is such a crapshoot because of Western intervention. Hence, 'endorsement of lies.'

The deposition of Saddam was seemingly the only positive outcome of the invasion. The abuses and overall sorry state of affairs in Iraq overshadow any other 'benefits' that may have come from the invasion.

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 09:58:10 AM

A majority of the Iraqi population says they feel worse off since the country was invaded. 'Welcomed' my ass.

Uh huh. From the article:

Quote

Iraqis expressed concern about the departure of U.S. forces, but are nonetheless cautiously optimistic. Six in 10 Iraqis, said a report on the results, feared a possible civil war, partition of the country, outsized foreign influence by neighbors, terrorism, or economic woes. The concerns played into mixed Iraqi emotions

Nice distortion of the information being conveyed there. All that's really telling us is that the Iraqi population are apprehensive about the future, which is not the same as saying "they feel worse off."

In fact, an ACTUAL polling report suggests that 48% of the Iraqi population feel better off and 52% believe the economy was strong and security and sectarianism were getting better.

al-Baghdadi would like to have a word with you.

But did you even read your own source? 48% is a minority, and either way it's hardly a uniform opinion.

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 10:23:23 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on March 30, 2015, 10:08:44 AM

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 09:58:10 AM

A majority of the Iraqi population says they feel worse off since the country was invaded. 'Welcomed' my ass.

Uh huh. From the article:

Quote

Iraqis expressed concern about the departure of U.S. forces, but are nonetheless cautiously optimistic. Six in 10 Iraqis, said a report on the results, feared a possible civil war, partition of the country, outsized foreign influence by neighbors, terrorism, or economic woes. The concerns played into mixed Iraqi emotions

Nice distortion of the information being conveyed there. All that's really telling us is that the Iraqi population are apprehensive about the future, which is not the same as saying "they feel worse off."

In fact, an ACTUAL polling report suggests that 48% of the Iraqi population feel better off and 52% believe the economy was strong and security and sectarianism were getting better.

al-Baghdadi would like to have a word with you. But did you even read your own source? 48% is a minority, and either way it's hardly a uniform opinion.

Half the population is a minority? I think Mathematics would like a word with you.

48% is a minority. 52% is a majority.

But this inane line of reasoning is like saying "America likes Obama." Yeah, um... no. That's hardly the case.

Besides, the folks who don't like America are now the ones trying to wage jihad against it. You can't just ignore that the West created its own problems despite other lukewarm opinions towards it.

the ISIS threat can be directly attributed to the invasion of Iraq.

Actually, it's more attributable to us leaving and the sectarianism of Nouri al-Maliki. People who think the West is the cause of ISIS and the current situation of Iraq are just as naive as the neocons who think you can run around spreading democracy on a whim.

One reason why we're running airstrikes in Syria instead of toppling Assad already, and that's because as much of a bastard as he is, having a government to speak of is better than not having one. It helps to keep the region stable while not creating more enemies for ourselves.

The point is that his government is preferable to the Salafist militants trying to topple it, who are just as guilty in the use of weapons like sarin gas as their Alawite government. And yes, in the case of Syria, the government is a stabilising force.

But I've already dealt with how the situation in Iraq was--and continues to be--different.

Too big to be punished, and folks like you wouldn't let that happen anyway.

Damn right, I wouldn't. The UN's word isn't fucking gospel.

It's an independent country's right to be a shitty place to live.

And if people like you had been listened to: Libya would still have a nuclear arsenal bigger than we ever expected, we never would've traced the AQ Khan network around Pakistan and North Korea, the Taliban would still be playing host to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic would've made Bosnia part of a Greater Serbia, Kosovo would've been ethnically cleansed, the Clinton administration still wouldn't have done enough about Rwanda, the French wouldn't have successfully combated the Tuareg Rebellion in Northern Mali, Indonesia would've committed a genocide in East Timor and Saddam Hussein would still have a latent WMD capacity with a population riven with sectarianism and subjugated under his fundamentalist boot.

A majority of the Iraqi population says they feel worse off since the country was invaded. 'Welcomed' my ass.

Despite the problems Mordo has dealt with, stats from 2011 don't even begin to comment on how Americans were welcomed in 2003.

Nuance? More like "let's ignore the lies and abuses that were the basis of invading Iraq in 2003, and change them to more convenient reasons that have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight," while still ignoring the facts indicating that Iraq is such a crapshoot because of Western intervention. Hence, 'endorsement of lies.'

Pay attention. Me quite explicitly saying "Yeah, Blair and Bush fucked that one up" is not ignoring the lies and abuses.

The deposition of Saddam was seemingly the only positive outcome of the invasion. The abuses and overall sorry state of affairs in Iraq overshadow any other 'benefits' that may have come from the invasion.

If you can't see how the post-Saddam Iraq up until 2011 was better, almost invariably, than Saddam's Iraq I really don't have a fucking clue what to tell you.

I know Meta might hate this but many people opposing the fall of Assads regime believe it would be a better choice as unlike Iraq pure chaos will just enable more extremist groups like those in Iraq to occur.

Also the reason to go to Iraq was definitely not due to Saddam, hell we supported him in invading Iran, and when Kuwait happened we pushed and told the Kurds we had their backs if they rebelled. Well let us see what that got them. Let me see a bunch of them getting gassed and those who pushed them on did not hold their side of the bargain. Why they went to Iraq is beyond me.

So first this war was based not on any real reason, and second it had no goal that was positive if instead made more negatives unless you were in the military industry and were to sell weapons.

Why they went in because of a lie is beyond me, why did they stop supporting him all of a sudden for no reason i do not know why. But the reason they stopped supporting him was definitely not because he was an evil dictator.

Honestly another Con is that America cannot get involved in the world as it could before. It has had to retreat a bit and the Russians have shown they can swing their dick around alot more than before and will face less repercussion.

Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 30, 2015, 10:00:29 PM

Quote from: Risay117 on March 30, 2015, 09:56:34 PM

I know Meta might hate this but many people opposing the fall of Assads regime believe it would be a better choice as unlike Iraq pure chaos will just enable more extremist groups like those in Iraq to occur.

Also the reason to go to Iraq was definitely not due to Saddam, hell we supported him in invading Iran, and when Kuwait happened we pushed and told the Kurds we had their backs if they rebelled. Well let us see what that got them. Let me see a bunch of them getting gassed and those who pushed them on did not hold their side of the bargain. Why they went to Iraq is beyond me.

So first this war was based not on any real reason, and second it had no goal that was positive if instead made more negatives unless you were in the military industry and were to sell weapons.

Why they went in because of a lie is beyond me, why did they stop supporting him all of a sudden for no reason i do not know why. But the reason they stopped supporting him was definitely not because he was an evil dictator.

We totally gotta add eachother on Skype or something...

You're like the only other person here who follows Middle East events closely.

Yeah, we can. You can find me in the Sep7agon Chat. Risayahmed
Got a guy riding a unicorn toy with a rainbow in the background.

Only problem is that i do not talk much on skype.

Is that your Skype name?

So I take it you're Middle Eastern ethnically, or what?

This is the most ironic thing you've said in this entire thread. Don't talk down to yourself like that. You've been arguing that case throughout this entire discussion, and now you're pretending that it's somehow not your argument? This is the kind of (logical) gymnastics that would give Mary Lou Retton a run for her money.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You do realise people can support wars and not be braindead, partisan neocons. . . Right? I don't think we can spread democracy throughout the Middle East with bombs and bullets for the same reason we aren't primarily to blame for ISIS's current "achievements".

Believe it or not, events in countries with brown people aren't totally determined by the actions of us whiteys.

The way you're handwaving all of their fuck-ups is basically doing just that.

Except I'm not. You should know Iraq is one thing I support Bush on, and even then only marginally. And I'm no New Labour shill. What exactly do you want me to do? Get down on my hands and knees and promise to the Lord that I don't like Bush and Blair for what they did?

Or do you want me to explicitly pick a side, because I'm in it for the interests of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs primarily.

CONS OF INVADING IRAQ:

-Post 9/11 fearmongering

Around a declaration made in 1998. Sucks, but hey, at least we know it wasn't an underlying cause of the prosecution of the war.

-Countless lies by the Bush administration

Which I condemn.

-Mass surveillance caused by said fearmongering

Which I also condemn. I don't why you think people lack enough nuance to actually differentiate between certain events. Although, mass surveillance

-Countless abuse scandals that also hurt our standing

Right, a few tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib begins to compare to the suffering, destitution and murder in the hundreds of thousands committed by Saddam. I mean, come on, have some fucking proportion. What do you think Saddam did in those prisons?

-A false declaration of the 'end of combat operations' that made a farce of the military and the US in general

Pretty sure Turkey dealt with that.

-Boots still on the ground 12 years later

Pretty sure I dealt with that.

PROS OF INVADING IRAQ:

-Saddam go bye-bye (but for some reason Iraq is the only time this will happen, because non-reasons)
-Look, we found a penny WMDs that did not fit the adminstration's narrative and were consequently covered up, thus denying troops the necessary medical treatment
-Oh, and a slight majority the Iraqis feel good about the economy

Let's not underplay these issues here. A much wanted war criminal was put on trial, the Kurdish and Shiite majority were rescued from the threat of renewed genocide from a State apparatus with a proven record of such intentions, people weren't fucking murdered for owning a satellite dish, the Mesopotamian Marshes have recovered, fresh oilfields were found and investments made, a federal state was established until Nouri al-Maliki fucked it up with his sectarianism,  the Kurds were provided their own semblance of self-government and Qaddafi likely wouldn't have handed over his stockpile which allowed us to trace the network and accomplish what is probably the biggest anti-proliferation victory to date.

And you want to compare this with Abu Ghraib and say it wasn't worth it? What the fuck are you smoking? You really want to try and balance something like 3,800 unfortunately and wrongly tortured prisoners with hundreds of thousands of murders, a lot of which with chemical weaponry?

Why are we to blame for the instability clearly exacerbated by fundamentalist militants and their delusionally theocratic and pornographic views of what the world should be like? You need to ask yourself what a post-Saddam Iraq would look like without a coalition present. The Sunni-Shia sectarianism that exploded because of al-Maliki's idiocy? Nothing to temper it. The Jihadists already there would've been active and without proper opposition, even if they weren't funded by Iran. And Iran, by the way, probably would've pushed its own interests harder for the Shi'a majority, maybe even with some involvement from Hezbollah. The Saudis, of course, would have their own vested interests in the Sunni minority--and of course Iraq being a keystone oil state. And then the Turks would be stroking their wet fundamentalist cunts over the prospects Kurdistan afforded them.

This disgusting idea that we somehow have no moral obligation to the people of Iraq and their suffering under one of the most brutal dictators in history is abhorrent. Much of our choice had already been forfeited in this matter, we were deeply involved in the death throes of Iraq way before 2003, and you think it would've been appropriate to let it play out?

We've seen the results of the sort of things you're advocating, even if you say you would've supported intervention in places like Bosnia or East Timor. We've seen them in Rwanda, Burma and Darfur. And we're seeing them in places we unfortunately don't really have a good enough impetus to involve ourselves in like the Central African Republic and even North Korea.

But I'll be fucked if I sit by and watch countries like Iraq turn into Sudan.

Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 29, 2015, 03:23:35 PM

If Saddam Hussein stayed in power, Iraq would have exploded worse than Syria right now. So I'm actually somewhat grateful for the US/UK for ending Saddam Hussein before Iraq could have been totally destroyed by him.

This.

Obviously we can't know for sure what might have gone down had he lived and ruled until natural death, but it would not be good.

I imagine it would be somewhat like what went down in the Balkans after Tito croaked, probably worse.

I kind of agree and disagree as this is well based on hypothethical decisions.

Quote from: Risay117 on March 30, 2015, 10:36:11 PM

Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 30, 2015, 10:29:30 PM

Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 29, 2015, 03:23:35 PM

If Saddam Hussein stayed in power, Iraq would have exploded worse than Syria right now. So I'm actually somewhat grateful for the US/UK for ending Saddam Hussein before Iraq could have been totally destroyed by him.

This.

Obviously we can't know for sure what might have gone down had he lived and ruled until natural death, but it would not be good.

I imagine it would be somewhat like what went down in the Balkans after Tito croaked, probably worse.

I kind of agree and disagree as this is well based on hypothethical decisions.

People who think Iraq--IRAQ--would've been more stable after Sta- sorry, Saddam kicked the bucket don't know what they're talking about. I mean, I posted a story today about Iran suddenly refusing to hand over her nuclear stockpiles as part of the nuclear talks.

This is not a stable, trust-able region in the world.

About Iran, they are quite stable and there is hope of progress on that front with diplomacy. Also must say that most of their nuclear stockpile is being downgraded if not all to a level only useful for medical and energy use. Nothing else.

Honestly it is an interesting scenario where Saudi's and Isreal find themselves on the same side when they are supposed to be on the opposite. Personally i believe the region needs to mature and soon some source of advancement and normality will come. It sounds kind of horrible saying it as i am basically saying that people lives do not matter in the grand scheme of things.