Quote from: Isara on March 31, 2015, 12:58:27 AM

That's another remarkable failure in an ongoing bloody chapter where the West was involved.

Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 31, 2015, 12:55:54 AM

IS actually existed back during Saddam Hussein's rule, and really became powerful due to Syrian support. So you can thank Assad for IS.

Them existing back during Saddam Hussein's rule?

They were organized first in 1999. Of course proto-IS is completely unrecognizable compared to the IS we all know and love today. And why would a Sunni militant group arise to combat a Sunni-dominated Government in between 1991 and 2003?

Hell, not even that. They only really kicked it into gear when the Sunni Sons of Iraq were actively marginalised.

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".

'Greeted as liberators' sure contradicts that notion. You say you don't believe it and yet, you're forced to push the argument that we did give them democracy with bombs and bullets and that those reasons make Iraq 'one of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare.'

Make up your goddamned mind already.

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

Exactly. Mind our own business instead of fucking them up the ass with "freedom." Or better yet, find somewhere that's more deserving of our attention first. It doesn't need to be in the Middle East to be important.

Except I'm not. You should know Iraq is one thing I support Bush on, and even then only marginally.

"One of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare."
Stop contradicting yourself.

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.

Fearmongering that was made possible due to 9/11

Which I condemn.

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

Good.

(Either I fucked up trying to reply to this, or you forgot to finish your sentence. I'll wait to see which one it was >.>)

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?

Either way, it hurt our standing in a huge way.

Pretty sure Turkey dealt with that.

What? I'm talking about this, what are you talking about?

Pretty sure I dealt with that.

12 years and 2 trillion dollars is a long fucking time and a lot of fucking money.

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?

Abu Ghraib was one of the situations that contributed to the anti-West sentiment and damaged the US's image for the long term. The impact the abuses had was certainly not worth it.

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.

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.

Why Iraq as opposed to any other place, like Darfur? Darfur saw barely an acknowledgement from the US and the situation was unarguably worse than anything that would have happened under Saddam. The US didn't even give a damn about most of what you said--it was acting in its own paranoid interests of self-preservation and democracy at gunpoint. The US never had any interest in the bigger picture--those were simply convenient side-effects--and today we're still dealing with problems caused by that the half-assed invasion.

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?

"...and the world just fuckin' watched."

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.

We're still cleaning up the mess caused in Iraq. Just because the old problems were prevented doesn't mean there isn't a shitload of new ones in their wake.

Going in under the auspices of nuclear weapons was retarded. Would have been much easier to say they're going in to topple a horrible dictator who really did deserve to be taken out, so in that regard, I am all for it.

WMD's referred to chemical weapons, which were found, and we knew Saddam had because of the Kurdish genocide in which he gassed thousands of his own citizens. Though, the primary mission was to topple the regime for numerous human rights reasons.

We ousted everyone in the Saddam government from the lowest, to highest levels, which only led to them rebelling and fighting us, we put the wrong people in power and they only divided people even more, and many other things.

The coalition didn't install anyone, it opened up the chance for democratic elections which went relatively well. The biggest issue was the later administration's unwillingness to continue working with the coalition.

I honestly think 2,500 people died for a war that was poorly handled and managed. In other words, died for nothing.

Are you referring to 9/11? That had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

I'm doing damage control? I... well yes, on this particular point, but this hardly undermines the larger point of my argument. 52% is still something that shouldn't be ignored, and as far as I'm concerned, they make up the majority.

Agreed, but that's not the initial narrative you were trying to spin.

You answered your own question.

Please tell me how a 50/50 approval rating of Obama has anything to do with what we're talking about.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the war directly contributed to the modern incarnation of ISIS.

Sorry what? Please tell me how the Iraq War contributed to formation of ISIS in 1999?

I would prefer to stop continuing the policy of unnecessary interventions that have inevitably caused more problems than they solved. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as you've clearly proven.

All these wars were aggravated on behalf of the Communist governments, not the US, especially the Bay Of Pigs seeing as how Cuba was fucking around with US oil and had strong ties to the Soviet Union.

But how about you go invade Iran and Palestine and Syria while you're at it? I haven't seen a solid explanation yet as to why those countries are somehow fundamentally different from Saddam's Iraq. (Hint: they're not)

Iran is a (relatively, and I emphasize relatively) stable middle eastern region, much more stable than Iraq during the early noughties, and I find it laughable that you would even try to draw a comparison between the two. Obviously it's got some tensions with the US regarding it's nukes, but from what I recall, Ahmadinejad didn't participate in ethnic cleansing, fucking around with oil (which would've effected the entire world economy) or try to annex Kuwait.

Palestine is barely even a sovereign nation anymore, no thanks to Hamas. I fail to see the relevancy between Palestine and Hussein controlled Iraq though.

Syria? The FSA is being supported by the US, I would like to add, although granted, the FSA aren't exactly angelic either. And again, Assad wasn't nearly doing half the shit Hussein committed. Internet surveillance, torture and secret police? Yeah, it's despicable shit, but in comparison to Hussein he's practically Nelson Mandela.

Are you referring to 9/11? That had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

As I've already said a lot of times in this thread, it's foolish to believe that post-9/11 fearmongering did not play a part in the US government's justification of the Iraq war. I've yet to see anyone actually counter that claim, considering the obvious evidence supporting it.

Agreed, but that's not the initial narrative you were trying to spin.

I suppose it's ironic then, because the reasons for the Iraq war being presented by you and Meta were not the original justifications for the war.

Please tell me how a 50/50 approval rating of Obama has anything to do with what we're talking about.

It's to the Iraqi's thoughts on the invasion--lukewarm at best.

Sorry what? Please tell me how the Iraq War contributed to formation of ISIS in 1999?

I must sound like a broken record at this point--the modern incarnation of ISIS was directly caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

All these wars were aggravated on behalf of the Communist governments, not the US, especially the Bay Of Pigs seeing as how Cuba was fucking around with US oil and had strong ties to the Soviet Union.

Paranoia sure is a common theme in conservative foreign policies.

Iran is a (relatively, and I emphasize relatively) stable middle eastern region, much more stable than Iraq during the early noughties, and I find it laughable that you would even try to draw a comparison between the two. Obviously it's got some tensions with the US regarding it's nukes, but from what I recall, Ahmadinejad didn't participate in ethnic cleansing, fucking around with oil (which would've effected the entire world economy) or try to annex Kuwait.

Palestine is barely even a sovereign nation anymore, no thanks to Hamas. I fail to see the relevancy between Palestine and Hussein controlled Iraq though.

The Iranian government has its own fair share of egregious human rights issues. You're just dismissing it because there's no legitimate reasons why we shouldn't invade them, too. Oh, and they have it in their country's constitution that one of their primary reasons for existence is to wipe Israel clean off the map. It's a declaration of war if I've ever seen one, certainly a lot more clearly than whatever you imagine Saddam to have been saying in 2003.

And as I've already implied before, the oil situation was like exaggerated to some significant degree.

Regardless of Hamas' legitimacy as a government, Palestine is still a sovereign nation. Considering their own litany of human rights abuses, we should invade them, too, along with Iran.

Or does someone need to invent false claims of active weapons programs for that to happen?

Syria? The FSA is being supported by the US, I would like to add, although granted, the FSA aren't exactly angelic either. And again, Assad wasn't nearly doing half the shit Hussein committed. Internet surveillance, torture and secret police? Yeah, it's despicable shit, but in comparison to Hussein he's practically Nelson Mandela.

Do you live under a rock? We didn't even need to look under any couches to find those chemical weapons. There's instantly a stronger case for invading Syria than there ever was for Iraq in 2003.

Don't be so fucking facile. While I do think the establishment of an Iraqi democracy was a good thing in the sense that it gave autonomy to the Kurds and the Shi'a, which is an extension of our imposition of no-fly zones over the north and south to protect them when Saddam was still in power.

But it was hasty, and poorly done, I think. And Nouri al-Maliki's failure is testament to that. But, I'm sure you quite clearly understand that liberation is not equivocal to democratisation.

Democratization is the most obvious outcome of liberation by a Western country. And indeed, it was certainly one of the US's primary reasons for invading Iraq. You haven't quite denied it so much as dance around it.

Who the fuck is more deserving than a country which has the potential to cripple the world economy and, who by a happy coincidence, we have been intimately involved in for a long time. North Korea is probably in more dire straits, from a humanitarian perspective, but you can't say to me that picking your battles is not a valid strategy.

The US has more than enough of its own resources to reasonably sustain itself, but curiously its dependence on other countries skyrocketed during the Clinton and Bush years. Kind of funny how that works, declare a war because keeping the availability of oil limited because that's more profitable.

But how can you say that factually incorrect claims about the threat of Iraq (which you've still yet to refute) would somehow demand its prioritization over literally genocide.

NK is cushy with China so it's unlikely we'll actually do something about them unless China decides Kim has gone off the wall.

Yeah, it was. Again we come back to this problem you seem to have with people being nuanced. Why do you insist on relentlessly conflating support for the war, for support for Bush? I kind of like Bush for prosecuting the war, but it would've been better if Clinton had done it. And I don't like Bush for giving it a bad name.

You're confusing 'nuance' for logical gymnastics. You support it but then... you don't for some inane reason.

I'm sorry, do you have a stutter?

I have consistency and a brain enough to know when reckless foreign policy has fucked us up the ass.

Right, and so do the NSA programmes, as if every other developed nation doesn't spy on their people. Geopolitics is a theatre, the only difference is that people's lives are involved.

How many countries do we know of that have been spying on the emails of countries that call us their ally? It's like patting them on the back in friendly way and putting a 'kick me' sign on their back.

I don't think the diplomatic damage even comes close to outweighing the positives.

If you believe preposterous claims such as that, then I know the perfect place where you can hone your abilities as a logical gymnast.

Big whoop, he was dumb and put a sign on an aircraft carrier.

He lied. Why do you insist on handwaving that? (Simply saying you're not isn't a valid claim, because everything else you've said runs counter to that.)

I know, I mentioned Darfur later in my comment. I'm not sure I'd say it was worse than Saddam's Iraq, and I honestly don't know which country was more deserving in humanitarian terms. But, like Rwanda and Burma, it's a fucking tragedy that nobody paid any goddamn attention to it.

But the fact that we, tragically, ignored Darfur is not an argument for why not ignoring Iraq was a bad course of action.

Iraq was hyped up the US government. The situation in Darfur was leagues worse than it was in Iraq. Darfur's tragedy is that it doesn't have any oil.

Who cares?

Considering the fact that we're still in Iraq 12 years and 2 trillion dollars later, you should. But, you know, it's easier to just handwave it.

I don't care if Bush did it because he liked to wank over the bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers and insurgents. The consequences are what matters. Saying I should care that the US never intended to do those things is like saying I should oppose that new Indiana law even if it causes bigoted businesses to go bankrupt.

Yeah, and I'm not going to list all the consequences all over again.

I know, and it's fucking horrendous.

Your batshit view of the world allowed it to happen.

The mess in Iraq--meaning ISIS--is only our fault to the extent that as we left, it allowed them to make a push for eastern Syrian oilfields and take swathes of Iraq, as well as--I think--the newly-found oilfields in the Sunni areas of the country. Sectarianism is to blame for ISIS's current existence.

But, like I said, it ain't a five-year job. It sucks that we're still there, but the French experience in Mali has shown it is indeed possible to fight insurgencies. And there will be a lot more insurgencies to fight in the future, and we will fuck up along the way. But this isn't just a geopolitical fight, it's a moral one too. Everybody's worried about what the Jihadists might think when we do something, I'd rather they worry about what we have to think.

It's never going to end, you know. New threats will keep cropping up in the Middle East, and those will become the new reasons to stay in Iraq. The military'll keep stringing us along saying that, no, this is now the biggest threat to America. The same way it's been for decades, except this is going to be the longest time we've ever stayed in one country. Anything that doesn't have oil or is south of the equator is going to go nearly unrecognized by the Western powers that be.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 09:53:04 AM

Are you referring to 9/11? That had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

As I've already said a lot of times in this thread, it's foolish to believe that post-9/11 fearmongering did not play a part in the US government's justification of the Iraq war. I've yet to see anyone actually counter that claim, considering the obvious evidence supporting it.

Does it really need to be refuted? The Iraq War began in 2003 -- 2 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, in retaliation for 9/11. There's really no evidence of involvement at all, since the U.S. had at the time an ongoing offensive against the group that perpetrated 9/11.


And to everyone else, just searching this page alone:

I suppose it's ironic then, because the reasons for the Iraq war being presented by you and Meta were not the original justifications for the war.

I already conceded to the fact that the reasons given for entering the war were pretty flimsy. That's not the crux of the argument me and Meta are making though. What ultimately matters here is the outcome of the war, and if it will benefit Iraq in the long term (which it will).

It's to the Iraqi's thoughts on the invasion--lukewarm at best.

So the majority don't actually think they're worse off then, the initial statement which you posited?

I must sound like a broken record at this point--the modern incarnation of ISIS was directly caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

By the way, ISIS wasn't going away even if the coalition allies didn't invade, and I can only suspect that Hussein would've more than likely supported and funded them, given his history with previous terrorist organizations.

Paranoia sure is a common theme in conservative foreign policies.

Seeing as how The Soviet Union parked nukes right on The US's doorstep literally a year later I don't blame them.

The Iranian government has its own fair share of egregious human rights issues.You're just dismissing it because there's no legitimate reasons why we shouldn't invade them, too

Yeah, I know and it's despicable. Unfortunately in terms of geopolitics, that isn't substantial enough to enter into a war. North Korea has a bigger repertoire of human rights abuse than both countries combined but we don't invade because geopolitically, they don't have much of an impact on the rest of the world. Hussein was fucking around with the world economy, which funnily enough, effects more than just Iraq intrinsically, not to mention he was threatening the stability of the entire Middle East with his attempted annexation of Kuwait. I recognize Iran has committed heinous deplorable acts against humanity, but as harsh as it may sound, it's an internalized issue, not externalized.

Oh, and they have it in their country's constitution that one of their primary reasons for existence is to wipe Israel clean off the map. It's a declaration of war if I've ever seen one,

lmao no.

Apologies for using NK as an example again, but they constantly hurl abuse at the South and The US with "threats of war" and nothing ever really happens. They're all bark but no bite. That's hardly a viable reason to invade though.

Simply saying something does not constitute as an act of aggression. You actually have to, you know, do something funnily enough.

certainly a lot more clearly than whatever you imagine Saddam to have been saying in 2003.

I really couldn't give two flying fucks about what he may or may not have said. What ultimately matters here is what he did.

And as I've already implied before, the oil situation was like exaggerated to some significant degree.

You know, if you're going to link me to the page of an oil company that somehow proves whatever point you're trying to make here, at least put a modicum of effort in and direct me to the section that posits your argument.

Regardless of Hamas' legitimacy as a government, Palestine is still a sovereign nation. Considering their own litany of human rights abuses, we should invade them, too, along with Iran.

I think we should support Israel in attempting to wipe Hamas off the map and avoid any kind of serious conflict at the same time. But Hamas is a terrorist organization. They're not in control of the government. Hussein was.

Or does someone need to invent false claims of active weapons programs for that to happen?

They weren't false.

Granted, the Bush administration over exaggerated the amount found, but chemical weapons were uncovered nonetheless.

Do you live under a rock?

Do I seriously need to repeat myself again? I'm beginning to feel like a Parrot.

Assad and his government are not a threat to international security like Hussein was.

Guys shut the fuck up. While you bicker over Iraq all day Obama is secretly creating FEMA death camps. Think you're safe from the NWO?

You're not.

*tips tin foil meme*

blah blah blah

stop

blah blah blah

stop

blah blah blah

stop



I don't give a flying fuck about this shit. It's ruining Serious for me and I really don't feel like going to this board just to see this thread get bumped up again with more of your bullshit partisan shillery.

I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this horseshit anymore, and each post wears thin my illusion of being a halfway polite person.

More importantly, this thread is goddamn clusterfuck. Each reply requires an exponentially longer rebuttal. Soon enough I'm going to be marathoning all six of Peter Jackson's Tolkien movies in the time it takes me to call you out on all of your increasingly complicated partisan spin masquerading as truth.

*deep breath* But let's be honest--it's so flipping convoluted that it's obvious we're never going to convince each other who's right or wrong. We're picking apart arguments like it's fucking Operation and completely missing the bigger picture. This is not going to get anywhere because it stopped resembling coherency back on page 2.

If you can't take the heat, stay the fuck out the kitchen.

I dont really support or are against the war. I think its stupid to be in another country for "freedom". I do support my brother that went and came back from there. As he told me "It still hits me hard sometimes and I cant that stand whistling noise" it reminds him too much of mortars.

I'm glad to see you all were entertained by my post, but I was hoping the "are you not entertained" at the end of it would have made it obvious that I was half-joking. But given the direction this thread was going in for me, and my increasingly not-nice replies made a spergout expected. Especially since those unwelcome antics from a certain he-who-shall-not-be-named >.>

I could have just stopped replying, but I shot myself in the foot instead <.<

I think it would be a lost cause to try to salvage this thread. I don't think I'd have the time or interest to keep going (and I'm not winning here anyway), but more importantly I don't think anyone would take me seriously at this point... or ever again.

Oops. >.>