Was the US war in Iraq/Afghan preventable?

[John Cuthber]

Oddly, this "By that reasoning no person could ever declare war. War cannot therefore be declared. That's nice." doesn't actually follow from what I said.

At best you could say that, as long as we don't let nutters run the country, we won't get wars.

that might well be true, but ...

 

 

 

I'm tired of hearing about the "war on this or the war on that".

It's great rhetoric to make sound-bites from but it's nonsense.

Who signs the armistice when the "War of terror " or the "War on cancer" are over?

 

Al Qa'ida are not a particularly organised homogeneous bunch. About all they have in common are a hatred of the US and a bastardised version of a religious belief.

There is not "spokesman" for them- they have no general or C in C so there wouldn't be anyone to sign the armistice.

How would you know the war was over - and equally, when did it start?

Was the conflict with the IRA part of the War on terror?

 

Nope, terrorism is just organised crime. It should be treated as such. to call it war gives it some gloss of legitimacy.

 

However I don't think I can explain the case for splitting terrorism from war any better than you put it.

 

As you said, "Death at the hands of a terrorist flying a plane into a building should never be compared to anything like a uniformed soldier fighting to liberate a country. To directly compare the two avoids all common decency".

 

That's why terrorism isn't war, and it's exactly the point I was making.

 

Of course I still think that, had we sent food rather than bombs, we could have got a large enough fraction of the locals to support us that we wouldn't have needed to send our soldiers to their deaths.

I guess we will never know, but it would have made OBL's rallying cries of the US being the enemy of Islam look a bit stupid when his audience knew from personal experience that the US was the feeder of Islam.

 

I'm not unaware that providing free food can mess up a countries infrastructure and economy, but so does bombing it- and at least one of the strategies wins you some friends.

 

Finally, I think that the 9/11 bombers were Saudis because they were Saudis rather than, for example, Iraqi or Afghan. As I have said I'm not convinced that Al Qa'ida was (or is) really based anywhere. I think it's a rather loose association of terrorist groups who benefit from claiming to be organised and coordinated because they are, in fact, rather small rag tag groups of failures desperately seeking the credibility associated with being part of a world-wide organisation.

They are benefiting greatly from the label that we have been dumb enough to give them.

[Iggy]

However I don't think I can explain the case for splitting terrorism from war any better than you put it.

 

As you said, "Death at the hands of a terrorist flying a plane into a building should never be compared to anything like a uniformed soldier fighting to liberate a country. To directly compare the two avoids all common decency".

 

That's why terrorism isn't war, and it's exactly the point I was making.

 

 

Well done, that. You are crafty I see.

 

Of course I still think that, had we sent food rather than bombs, we could have got a large enough fraction of the locals to support us that we wouldn't have needed to send our soldiers to their deaths.

 

Convert to Islam. Surrender to their faith in body and mind and submit yourself fully to their Mullahs. Then you might just have a chance at appeasing these people. No amount of food would do it. Only a bullet could stop Bin Laden. No amount of food would persuade him against his murderous intentions. That is why it is a war. They say "we love death more than you love life". There is exactly one way to prove them right about that. It takes a bullet. It is a war.

 

They are 100% unpersuaded by your compassion. Only your complete surrender will do. And hope you do better than Daniel Pearl.

[John Cuthber]

What you have said is true of a small, but vocal, minority who have come to be leaders.

That leadership could be undermined far better with bread than with guns.

[dimreepr]

Using bullets instead of bread only ensures you have more enemies in the next generation as well as the few you have in this one.

[Iggy]

What you have said is true of a small, but vocal, minority who have come to be leaders.

That leadership could be undermined far better with bread than with guns.

 

Tell them they can't throw acid in their daughter's unveiled face and give them a sandwich. See how far that gets you with the vocal minority. Tell them they don't have a right to murder and give them an apple. If that doesn't do it then I don't know what will.

 

Using bullets instead of bread only ensures you have more enemies in the next generation as well as the few you have in this one.

 

They want the complete surrender of you and your culture. You are welcome to do it, but I think civilization is worth fighting for.

[overtone]

Only a bullet could stop Bin Laden. No amount of food would persuade

him against his murderous intentions. That is why it is a war. They

say "we love death more than you love life". There is exactly one way

to prove them right about that. It takes a bullet. It is a war.

That's what Saddam was doing, until interrupted.

 

Good for him, right? You support the continuation of his endeavors? You would be firmly opposed to removing Saddam from power and handing the key oil fields on the planet to Islamic theocrats?

 

 

They want the complete surrender of you and your culture. You are

welcome to do it, but I think civilization is worth fighting for.

"They" are a large and motley grab bag of terrorists and religious fanatics and organized criminals scattered all over the planet, from the drug cartels in Mexico, to the boon companions of Exxon and the Bush family in Saudi Arabia, to the heirs of the Khmer Rouge in the rain mountains of SE Asia, to the mangrove swamp mystics of backwater South Pacific islands.

 

How many wars, invasions, aerial bombing raids, drone assassination operations, wholesale bad guy killing operations launched by US military,

 

for how many years on end, debt rollovers in sequence, governing needs postponed,

 

did you have in mind?

Edited February 19, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

How many of them have you asked?

 

The only ones you hear from are the power crazed zealots.

They can only maintain their position as leaders through fear. "We (with God's help) will protect you against the evil Americans"

That fear is stoked by having the world's largest (and most expensive) military force fighting against them.

 

Do you really think that most of the people there would be very happy if the fighting stopped- no matter who won.

[Iggy]

That's what Saddam was doing, until interrupted.

 

Good for him, right? You support the continuation of his endeavors? You would be firmly opposed to removing Saddam from power and handing the key oil fields on the planet to Islamic theocrats?

 

What? Saddam wasn't fighting terrorists. He was housing them. I don't know what you're talking about. He was paying Muhammad Zaidan's room and board. We didn't need that to continue. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[John Cuthber]

Saddam was, among other things, noted for "not getting on very well" with OBL.

[Iggy]

How many of them have you asked?

 

The only ones you hear from are the power crazed zealots.

They can only maintain their position as leaders through fear. "We (with God's help) will protect you against the evil Americans"

That fear is stoked by having the world's largest (and most expensive) military force fighting against them.

 

Do you really think that most of the people there would be very happy if the fighting stopped- no matter who won.

 

I mind who wins. Al Qaeda is an enemy of civilization and only the dismantling of civilization could appease it. If you don't consider al Qaeda an enemy then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one. And, I'm sorry, but Americans aren't willing to surrender their country to make nice. They have every reason to be afraid.

 

Saddam was, among other things, noted for "not getting on very well" with OBL.

 

I'm not sure they hung out.

[dimreepr]

 

I mind who wins. Al Qaeda is an enemy of civilization and only the dismantling of civilization could appease it. If you don't consider al Qaeda an enemy then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one. And, I'm sorry, but Americans aren't willing to surrender their country to make nice. They have every reason to be afraid.

 

You can’t fight a terrorist with an army you fight them with intelligence OBL is testament to that.

[Iggy]

You can’t fight a terrorist with an army you fight them with intelligence OBL is testament to that.

 

You do understand that an army killed bin Laden? We didn't send the girl scouts.

[overtone]

What? Saddam wasn't fighting terrorists. He was housing them.

No, he wasn't. He was killing them. As the most secular and Westernized of the Islamic oil field governments in the region, Iraq and its ruler were prime targets of Islamic terrorism both foreign and domestic, and the enemies of the theocratic terrorist supporting States on Iraq's borders.

 

Removing Saddam, purifying Iraq of its Western corruptions, and installing theocratic Islamic governance in Iraq has long been a desire of the hard core Islamic fanatics - the US was most cooperative, one hopes unwittingly, in the realization of this dream.

 

Unfortunately the exact form and sectarian allegiance of the new Islamic ruling cadre had not been agreed, and vicious civil war with ethnic cleansing turned out to be the negotiating tactics of choice, but they were probably not the first religious fanatics to find themselves disappointed in the reality of their hopes.

 

 

You do understand that an army killed bin Laden? We didn't send the girl scouts.

"We" didn't launch a military invasion of Pakistan, we didn't start a war.

 

Maybe we learned something, between 2000 and 2012.

 

 

I don't

know what you're talking about.

That has been obvious for some time.

Edited February 19, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

No, he wasn't.

 

I gave you a name. I suggest you look it up before digging your hole deeper.

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

You do understand that an army killed bin Laden? We didn't send the girl scouts.

 

As I understand it he was killed in an operation led by the Central Intelligence Agency; they didn’t just march an army through Pakistan.

[Iggy]

As I understand it he was killed in an operation led by the Central Intelligence Agency; they didn’t just march an army through Pakistan.

 

Indeed the army flew itself through Pakistan. I think you'll find the army a critical element of that equation.

[dimreepr]

Indeed the army flew itself through Pakistan. I think you'll find the army a critical element of that equation.

 

And yet no war was declared on Pakistan.

[overtone]

 

I gave you a name. I suggest you look it up before digging your hole deeper.

It's familiar. Now try giving us a reasonable post, an argument, discussion from evidence, recognition of reality, apology for backing jingoistic nonsense with personal insult, etc - something useful and relevant and at least resembling honest discussion.

[Iggy]

And yet no war was declared on Pakistan.

 

Indeed. One has to feel bad for Pakistan as they do for Afghanistan. An extreme form of lunatic ideology has taken root and just strangled those countries. One's heart can't help but go out to them.

 

It's familiar. Now try giving us a reasonable post, an argument, discussion from evidence, recognition of reality, apology for backing jingoistic nonsense with personal insult, etc - something useful and relevant and at least resembling honest discussion.

 

"Jingoistic" Good word

 

Let's see. I said Saddam was housing terrorists. I gave the example Muhammad Zaidan. I'll quote wiki:

 

 

Muhammad Zaidan (December 10, 1948 - March 8, 2004) also known as Abū ‘Abbās (ابو عباس) or Muhammad ‘Abbās, was the founder and leader of the terrorist organization^[1]Palestine Liberation Front (P.L.F.).

 

He then flew to Aden, South Yemen and from there to Baghdad where Saddam Hussein sheltered him from extradition to Italy. He remained in Iraq and commanded the P.L.F. (reunited in 1989) until the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zaidan

 

I've supported what I said. If you'd like to disagree, you'll be disagreeing with a fact. Saddam was a fantastically evil bastard, and supporting terrorists was no high water mark on the list of atrocities for which he needed the ultimate form of justice. Genocide would probably be the high water mark. We're talking about a genocidal madman, and I've said nothing insulting to you.

[overtone]

Indeed. One has to feel bad for Pakistan as they do for Afghanistan.

As the major source and base of the Islamic jihad terrorist problem in the locale, Pakistan would have been the target of an invasion honestly and dominantly motivated by a desire to stomp on Islamic jihad.

 

Pakistan actually contributed to 9/11, for example - money and people and effort from the government, military, powerful and wealthy citizens, large proportions of the population and countryside: the country itself - unlike Afghanistan, which as a country and government had nothing to do with it.

 

 

Let's see. I said Saddam was housing terrorists. I gave the example Muhammad Zaidan.

You said Saddam was supporting the Islamic jihad terrorism that was at war with the US, the AQ type, the Islamic theocratic fascists and their terrorist minions. You then claimed his housing of terrorists, plural, as an example of this support.

 

One PLO anti-Israeli nationalist terrorist given refuge from Italian law does not support those claims. He's the wrong kind of terrorist, there's only one of him, and he was not supported by Saddam during those terrorist operations.

 

I would not, say, use Florida's housing of the nationalist anti-Castro terrorist airplane bomber, the nationlist anit-Sandinista terrorist hospital and bus bombers, and so forth, as evidence of Florida's support of Islamic jihad terrorism. I instead refer to the employment of Florida land and facillities and financial institutions and pilot training facilities and so forth, by the 9/11 terrorists, as evidence of Florida's use by Islamic jihad terrorists as a training base for 9/11 - somewhat similar to, although more significant than, Afghanistan's use for that operation.

 

Islamic jihadists, especially those with Saudi or Iranian (so either Sunni or Shia) connections, were not welcome in Iraq under Saddam (as some are, now, especially Shia) for the very good reason that they were violently opposed to Saddam's rule and targeting Saddam as an ally of Western secular corruption, a consorter with infidels, and an enemy of the true faith. This despite Saddam's repeated attempts to repair his image in the Islamic world, theatrically emphasize his opposition to all things Israeli and so forth, ostentatiously back this or that symbol of Islamic purity and truth, and otherwise make some allies or dupes locally as his Western backing became increasingly convinced he was no longer reliably cooperative in the oil business.

 

But you knew all that, right?

 

We're talking about a genocidal madman,

Heads of State who are genocidal madmen in Saddam's manner (occasional wholesale slaughter and State terrorism of terrorist and violently rebellious ethnicities both domestic and foreign) are a dime a dozen in that region - most of them, like Saddam himself, installed as strongmen with the backing of the Western powers and especially the international oil, gas, and mining industry. Most of them US allies.

 

We are talking about military invasion, conquest, occupation, and attempted control, of the single most important oil field on the planet. Full scale aggressive military war, launched at US discretion and timing, fought on borrowed money, against a country that presented no military threat to us.

 

The question as whether that war was preventable. The answer seems fairly obvious to me - don't let W&Co launch it, it doesn't happen.

Edited February 20, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

You said Saddam was supporting the Islamic jihad terrorism that was at war with the US, the AQ type, the Islamic theocratic fascists and their terrorist minions. You then claimed his housing of terrorists, plural, as an example of this support.

 

I said all that?

 

Well... no... I guess that's a good point. The day I actually say "Islamic theocratic" is the day I'll worry about my argument. When I string those redundant adjectives together I'll admit that I don't know what I'm talking about in this thread. The day I use the words "AQ type" is the day I resign from this conversation.

 

Very good point. I couldn't get inebriated enough to spit out the string of words you just accused me of saying.

 

there's only one of him

 

The PLF had many offices in Iraq. They were terrorists. I gave you the leader's name. He wasn't the only guy. You could look this stuff up rather than relying on me to correct you. That is getting tedious.

 

One PLO anti-Israeli nationalist terrorist given refuge from Italian law does not support those claims. He's the wrong kind of terrorist

 

Well... the anti-Israeli terrorists certainly were not the wrong kind of terrorist for Saddam. They are wrong by me. Are they you? Can you say what you are thinking? What level of Freudian slip are you aiming at here?

 

We are talking about military invasion, conquest, occupation, and attempted control, of the single most important oil field on the planet. Full scale aggressive military war, launched at US discretion and timing, fought on borrowed money, against a country that presented no military threat to us.

 

The question as whether that war was preventable. The answer seems fairly obvious to me - don't let W&Co launch it, it doesn't happen.

 

My god... these stupid talking points. Conquest and occupation? You think? "most important oil field on the planet"? As if that isn't a *reason* to fight!

 

What nonsense!

 

You have one question to ask yourself. When Saddam's army comes over the horizon and chokes your uncle with gas and strangles your sister and rapes her while you are made to watch, while his secret police amputates you and your manhood, what do you say? Do you say that we couldn't oppose him without "borrowed money"?

 

Do you make a point that we had to borrow money to oppose him?

 

Well... Apparently you do. Good for you, and Saddam, and your genocidal ways.

[overtone]

 

You

said Saddam was supporting the Islamic jihad terrorism that was at war

with the US, the AQ type, the Islamic theocratic fascists and their

terrorist minions. You then claimed his housing of terrorists, plural,

as an example of this support.

 

I said all that?

Yep.

The day I actually say "Islamic theocratic" is the day I'll worry about

my argument. When I string those redundant adjectives together I'll

admit that I don't know what I'm talking about

Your admission that you omitted those adjectives because you think them redundant is welcome - it justifies my paraphrase, which I found necessary instead of quotation because of the wiggle room you provided yourself by your vagueness and confusion.

 

Note my observation that Iraq under Saddam, while definitely Islamic and fascist, was not theocratic, was one my calls on your bullshit - in particular your attempts at Fox Framing the Iraq war.

 

 

When Saddam's army comes over the horizon and chokes your uncle with gas

and strangles your sister and rapes her while you are made to watch,

while his secret police amputates you and your manhood, what do you

say?

Giving up on the terrorist support dishonesty? Good.

 

Saddam posed absolutely no such threat to me or mine or anyone compatriot, so self defense as claimed by you and the W%Cheney administration is bs. His atrocities toward others, especially the Kurds who had taken up armed rebellion and other theocratic Islamic insurgents as well as "communists" within his borders, were long supported by the US and certainly no motive for military invasion, conquest, occupation, and control as launched by W&Co.

 

 

Do you say that we couldn't oppose him without "borrowed money"?

No. And Fox Questions are considered lies, on discussion forums such as this.

 

 

Well... the anti-Israeli terrorists certainly were not the wrong kind of terrorist for Saddam.

The PLO faction as represented by Zoudain (just to emphasize, even that an example of refuge rather than operational support) are the wrong kind of terrorist for supporting your claims and attempted argument. And you have no other examples.

 

If you didn't mean to claim Saddam was (suicidally) supporting Islamic jihad terrorism against Western influence and Western secular government, you can clarify now - perhaps your new and amended assertions will be more useful in justifying the invasion of Iraq.

 

Although the issue of the inevitability of that debacle remains over the horizon - the answer to the OP is still "Yes, of course".

Edited February 21, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

 

 

I said all that?

Yep.

 

 

Quote it or apologize. I'll read the rest of your post if you can do one of those and I have time.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

 

Quote it or apologize.

As I stated and explained above, explicitly, I paraphrased - a necessity because of your vagueness, which was deceptive and question-begging. I was taking the question-begging as a personal tactic or quirk, but am beginning to suspect the deception is deliberate.

 

You explicitly agreed with that perception of vagueness, terming the clarification "redundant" and thereby validating my paraphrase as well as demonstrating the necessity of it. So that's settled, and you can read your own previous post for the quote.

 

 

I'll read the rest of your post if you can do one of those and I have time.

There's a part where I point out that you are lying, in your phrasing of some of your questions.

 

As you are introducing the topic of ethical affront, I will note further that people are often paid to write as you do, and post propaganda as you post, in public fora. This is a known tactic of the rightwing authoritarian think tanks in the US and the Zionist faction of the Israeli lobby, among others. You are missing a shot at a side income, given your talents and displayed ethical standards - or you aren't.

 

The impudence of someone who posts as you do demanding apologies from honest people is noted with amusement, but why should I care whether you ever read any of my posts?

Edited February 21, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

As I stated and explained above, explicitly, I paraphrased - a necessity because of your vagueness, which was deceptive and question-begging. I am beginning to suspect the deception is deliberate.

Well... ok... "paraphrased". I guess that marks me a little differently than "you said" and "you did". No... I guess I don't accept your paraphrase, but I think that is probably to be expected. I think we are entirely failing to communicate.

You explicitly agreed with that perception of vagueness, terming the clarification "redundant", and thereby validating my paraphrase as well as demonstrating the necessity of it.

No, again... anyone who doesn't know that islam is a theism is unable to process the plain meaning of english words. I have trouble telling with you if that is the case or if you are being deliberately biased. I mean... you obviously can't quote anything like what I said with anything like what you said, but what is the reason for that? I don't know. You are obfuscating, dissembling, or deceiving. Whatever the case. We can't communicate.

As you are introducing the topic of ethical affront, I will note further that people are often paid to write as you do, and post propaganda as you post, in public fora. This is a known tactic of the rightwing authoritarian think tanks in the US and the Zionist faction of the Israeli lobby, among others. You are missing a shot at a side income, given your talents and displayed ethical standards - or you aren't.

 

No apology will be offered to you, given your behavior. Neither do I care whether you ever read any of my posts.

No, I didn't expect it, and I did go back and read your post. It was prescient of me... I expected to sooner or later find the FOX comment. The accusation that it was my worldview. I tried to head that off so hard early on. I tried to tell you that interventionism and nation building were liberal ideas. But... I get it. I understand your bias better than you understand your own worldview. There is so much I could say, but I really don't want to be cruel.

 

I'm positive we can't successfully communicate. I'd appreciate anything you have to say about that and fair enough and all that...