Explain the War in Iraq

[arcthemonkey]

I guess I was mistaken about the communism thing (I just did some quick reading on it, and couldn't find anything to back up my claim) I could have SWORN I heard that Japan's excuse for invading China was to stop the growth of communism.

My world police comment still stands. Even if we were defending our interests, we were still responding to a treaty with China, and in a sense policing the situation.

And don't try to claim communism wasn't an issue before until after the war, because it's not like it just magically appeared one day.

As to my comments about the support of thr WMD intelligence, I may have exaggerated a bit, but that doesn't change that fact that many did, in fact, recieve the intelligence the same way we did. My point was that it was legitimate if faulty intelligence - we didn't just make it up.

I'm not trying to make excuses for faulty intelligence, but again that's not the president's fault. We didn't KNOW there was somethig wrong until that happened, hence, you know, widespread intelligence reform.

And your attitude towards foreign countries? It's not my fault if you aren't a humanitarian , but we can't sit on our asses and watch the world go by.

(I don't mean to come off like an idiot )

 

[FlippyD]

My world police comment still stands. Even if we were defending our interests, we were still responding to a treaty with China, and in a sense policing the situation.

We weren't policing anything, it was an embargo. We blocked the flow of iron between us and the South-East, since when is that policing anything? Anything remotely similar to "policing the world" would involve an act of force. It's the job of the police to subdue a target, not keep them from trading metal.

And don't try to claim communism wasn't an issue before until after the war, because it's not like it just magically appeared one day.

There's a difference between communisms existence and communism being a problem to the United States. I never said it magically appeared after the war, however it was Russia's communist state that became a threat to the United States after WWII. Remember this little thing called "The Cold War"?

As to my comments about the support of thr WMD intelligence, I may have exaggerated a bit, but that doesn't change that fact that many did, in fact, receive the intelligence the same way we did. My point was that it was legitimate if faulty intelligence - we didn't just make it up.

So, where did we come to the conclusion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any, and the US government has officially stated that no weapons of mass destruction where found in Iraq. So, if you claim that we had solid evidence at the time then I ask you where did this evidence come from?

To try and help your claim I will ask you look to the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (found here)
Essentially, we did have intelligence that supported the fact that Iraq might have had WMDs, however the evidence didn't support enough grounds to warrant an invasion of Iraq.

Because of the weak nature of the intelligence that was known by several countries before the invasion I believe a more subdued method should have been taken, namely that period in time we had Hans Blix poking around Iraq and looking for weapons of mass destruction. And paying careful attention to that part at the end where he said "Hay guyz, there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!"

I'm not trying to make excuses for faulty intelligence, but again that's not the president's fault. We didn't KNOW there was somethig wrong until that happened, hence, you know, widespread intelligence reform.

But the president was the one who decided to invade Iraq anyway, against the decision of the United Nations. He's the one who looked at "all the intelligence everybody else saw" namely the information of Hans Blix who actually went there and found nothing (oh wait, I remember he found some ice cream trucks and yellow cake that at first we thought where weapons but then found out they were just deserts.)

And your attitude towards foreign countries? It's not my fault if you aren't a humanitarian , but we can't sit on our asses and watch the world go by.

But is it our place to try and help these countries? Especially in the way we do it? I'm not saying helping starving kids in Africa is bad, no, I'm saying that taking over another country by force, subduing them and forcing them to become a democratic country is a bad idea, it's never truly worked before, and usually what happens is you have countries like Iraq and Cuba that say "thanks for the help US" and then turn around and spit in our eye. Besides, we have far too many problems on our own soil right now to worry about what other people are doing around the country. If there's one thing that Katrina did it's show the rest of the world just how f'ed up we are despite how we try and act.

 

[arcthemonkey]

The evidence was complicated! We knew they had in the past made stockpiles of chemical weapons. We knew that there were materials unaccounted for. (Hans Blix agreed with this!) Hans Blix was the one who stated that enormous chemical stockpiles that had been confirmed to exist less than 5 years ago were insufficiently accounted for. The Iraqi government claimed they destroyed these stockpiles, but despite their solid administration failed to document them. The sites where they supposedly destroyed much of the materials left no chemical evidence behind that any disposal had taken place. Hans Blix reported that Iraq had not met with the demands made of them to disarm under the resolution, and that various weapons like Anthrax and VX were still entirely unaccounted for.

The real controversy started when they didn't find them even after the invasion. Iraqi generals, chiefs of staff, and the prime minister all said they HAD chemical weapons but they moved them to Syria when Hans Blix and the other inspectors showed up. From the middle east quarterly -

Several different intelligence sources raised red flags about suspicious truck convoys from Iraq to Syria in the days, weeks, and months prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
These concerns first became public when, on December 23, 2002, Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli television, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."

I'm not saying they did have the weapons, but there was enough evidence that the US and Britain were pretty fairly convinced there was a threat.

It's not so cut and dry that anyone can claim that the evidence was fabricated and the pretense was a lie. It's very, very complicated.

 

[Roman Candle]

Between the two of you, you've missed the key finding of the assessment of Iraq, which was, as I recall, "Give us more time". I don't recall anyone saying to Bush "You have to make a decision now - either you invade today or never". He knew the limits of the evidence given. At the time, it was plausible that by investigating these claims, he could have found a just cause for war, (we know now that he wouldn't have, but that's irrelevent). So he's sitting there, with evidence to suggest that there might be evidence that he has WMDs. And what does he do? He pulls the trigger. That was the real mistake. Well, that and the incompetant planning of the whole scenario :p

ixis, I don't want to take over this thread with isolationist arguments, but that kind of attitude was what started, (or, less dramatically, failed to stop), WWII. Here are three reasons for America to take an interest - not the kind of interest which involves carpet bombing - in the rest of the world:
1. It is the duty of the stronger to protect the weaker, at all times. Just like it's the duty of your government to protect your rights, because it has much more power than you. Just like if a boxer sees a drunk getting beaten up in the street by a theif, he has the duty to intervene and help the man.
2. America interferes in other countries - particularly in the Middle East - through economic deals, such as oil deals, and setting up businesses in foreign countries, and just by existing as an economic superpower. In order to maintain that, America has to equally intervene to stabilise countries that it deals with.
3. Half the situations which America are involved with now are the result of previous dabblings. For instance Saddam Hussein being in power in the first place. You can't just decide on a point to pull out, when you get bored.

For the record, this is only directed at America because you seem to be implying that America should be exempt from these rules. Every developed power has the same obligation, and as the strongest one, America has the most - and yet is also the most reluctant to do so.

 

[Junk-Man]

Between the two of you, you've missed the key finding of the assessment of Iraq, which was, as I recall, "Give us more time". I don't recall anyone saying to Bush "You have to make a decision now - either you invade today or never". He knew the limits of the evidence given. At the time, it was plausible that by investigating these claims, he could have found a just cause for war, (we know now that he wouldn't have, but that's irrelevent). So he's sitting there, with evidence to suggest that there might be evidence that he has WMDs. And what does he do? He pulls the trigger. That was the real mistake. Well, that and the incompetent planning of the whole scenario

Also what they failed to mention was that the war is unconstitutional and illegal, given the fact that he bypassed congress and attacked a country preemptively without being given war powers.

Additionally, there never was any justification for going into Iraq, every rationalization, all the evidence put forth was proven false before the war even started.

ixis, I don't want to take over this thread with isolationist arguments, but that kind of attitude was what started, (or, less dramatically, failed to stop), WWII.

I was always under the impression that WWII was started by runaway nationalism (Japan's imperialism, Germany's invasion of poland, take your pick)

1. It is the duty of the stronger to protect the weaker, at all times. Just like it's the duty of your government to protect your rights, because it has much more power than you. Just like if a boxer sees a drunk getting beaten up in the street by a theif, he has the duty to intervene and help the man.

I disagree. It may be nice of us, as the biggest kid in the playground to look out for the little guy, but I hardly think that we have a duty to that effect. Britain sure didn't look after us when they were the big dogs (which is why we broke away and formed a country in the first place) Additionally, Europe as a whole displaced and destroyed many civilizations throughout the world using their strength and power. Ultimately, the duty of the strongest is to lead, which is what the US should do more of instead of wasting our time in Iraq.

2. America interferes in other countries - particularly in the Middle East - through economic deals, such as oil deals, and setting up businesses in foreign countries, and just by existing as an economic superpower. In order to maintain that, America has to equally intervene to stabilise countries that it deals with.

We deal with countries all over the world (we have over 10 conflicts in Latin America alone). I think that the problem is that we don't consider the end result for niether us nor the countrys we deal with. Most of the time we just willy-nilly go into various deals and (in this case) wars without proper planning.

3. Half the situations which America are involved with now are the result of previous dabblings. For instance Saddam Hussein being in power in the first place. You can't just decide on a point to pull out, when you get bored.

Sure, we have to clean our own messes, and I think we have a lot to answer for. I think that the real problem is that we want to be everyone's buddy. We can't.

 

[Afro Samurai]

Bush got tired of Iraq, now he is moving to Iran. What do you think of that?

 

[Roman Candle]

I'm going to lose my fucking mind if Britain bets pulled into Iran. Serriously, I may go insane with rage. They've already called the Territorial Army in to help in Afghanistaan. How bad is it already when we have to call on the fucking boy-scouts-with-explosives-and-lots-of-training? How much worse is it going to get?

Junk-Man: I don't see why you're talking about the past in your post. I never said that any of the major powers of Europe acted responsibly in preWWII times. They should have done, through, and you should now.

Isolationism was a cause of WWII in the sense that when big countries stoped caring about smaller countries, powers like Italy and Germany had the oppertunity to adopt agressive, militaristic societies. More importantly, America's reluctance to comment on the morals of the facist dictatorships, and eagerness to trade with said dictatorships, (such as fueling Italy during the invasion of Abysinia, making the Leage of Nations' sanctions obsolete) directly undermined world peace. If America had been willing to take early economic or military action against Germany durring the era of appeasment, or even earlier, then the world would never have got into a position where WWII could have happened.

GCSE History rawx teh s0x!

Anyway, this is all off topic. I really hope we don't end up in some kind of world war over this dumb little conflict.

 

[Junk-Man]

Bush got tired of Iraq, now he is moving to Iran. What do you think of that?

We aren't at war with Iran just yet, and hopefully, Bush and his cabinet will be kept at bay until 2008 when they all have to go.

I'm going to lose my fucking mind if Britain bets pulled into Iran. Serriously, I may go insane with rage. They've already called the Territorial Army in to help in Afghanistaan. How bad is it already when we have to call on the fucking boy-scouts-with-explosives-and-lots-of-training? How much worse is it going to get?

Seeing as how you guys do basically what we tell you to do, I think you guys are screwed. XD

Junk-Man: I don't see why you're talking about the past in your post. I never said that any of the major powers of Europe acted responsibly in preWWII times. They should have done, through, and you should now.

It works both ways. We shouldn't go all over the world sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, nor should we be trying to help everyone--it just isn't possible.

Isolationism was a cause of WWII in the sense that when big countries stoped caring about smaller countries, powers like Italy and Germany had the oppertunity to adopt agressive, militaristic societies. More importantly, America's reluctance to comment on the morals of the facist dictatorships, and eagerness to trade with said dictatorships, (such as fueling Italy during the invasion of Abysinia, making the Leage of Nations' sanctions obsolete) directly undermined world peace. If America had been willing to take early economic or military action against Germany durring the era of appeasment, or even earlier, then the world would never have got into a position where WWII could have happened.

And when did you expect us to take action against Germany, during the 30s, when we were in a great depression, with high unemployment, homelessness and an economy going to hell?

 

[FlippyD]

Isolationism was a cause of WWII in the sense that when big countries stoped caring about smaller countries, powers like Italy and Germany had the oppertunity to adopt agressive, militaristic societies. More importantly, America's reluctance to comment on the morals of the facist dictatorships, and eagerness to trade with said dictatorships, (such as fueling Italy during the invasion of Abysinia, making the Leage of Nations' sanctions obsolete) directly undermined world peace. If America had been willing to take early economic or military action against Germany durring the era of appeasment, or even earlier, then the world would never have got into a position where WWII could have happened.

GCSE History rawx teh s0x!

Isolationism wasn't the cause of WWII, WWI was the cause of WWII... C'mon now. >_>

Isolationism may have helped but... It wasn't because we adopted an isolationism attitude that WWII happened, and furthermore, when I say isolationism I mean in the sense of what Japan has now. Japan really only cares about Japan and that's it. They still do business with other countries too. Plus, back in the 30s-40s we didn't have this wonderful thing called: The United Nations.

Ok, let's review: (United Nations + modern day American business) - sticking our nose where it doesn't belong unless asked for help or sanctioned through the UN = People not hating us anymore.

 

[Roman Candle]

Spoiler: WWII

solationism wasn't the cause of WWII, WWI was the cause of WWII... C'mon now. >_>

Write that in a history essay, and see what you get for it, then.

People think that, just because WWII did happen, it was certain - or even likely to happen. In some ways, this is true, but the whole war could have been easily avoided. In fact, when you look back over the facts, it seems fairly unlikely that it did happen at all.

For instance, if the American stock market didn't crash, so the depression didn't kick in, so the American banks didn't have to recall their loans to Germany, so the Weimar didn't collapse, then Hitler would have remained a joke in Germany.

You are right that if the terms of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI hadn't been so outrageous, then the people of Germany wouldn't have been so angry, (and so hungry) that they stooped to electing Hitler, who prior to the election had been known as a real joke. Like the British National Party nowadays.

If the bizzare ingrigue and series of internal coups within the German government hadn't taken place, then Hindenberg and von Papen (I think it was him - History lessons were a long time ago) wouldn't have been in a position of such power.

If the infamous Article 48 - giving power of absolute presidential decree during emergencies - hadn't been placed in the Weimar constitution, then the counrty wouldn't have got into such a state in the first place. The same goes for proportional representation.

If Papen (probably him :p) hadn't totally overestimated Hitler's power and funding, then Hitler would never have been offered the Chancellorship. The NAZI party would have collapsed in a few months, or even weeks.

Onto the appeasement era. If Italy hadn't become a facist dictatorship favourable to Germany, then Britain and France wouldn't have needed to be so carful stepping around Mussolini and could have stared Hitler down.

When Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland, if the French and British had challenged them, the Germen troops were under orders to immediately retreat. France and Britain had totally overestimated his military strength. If this had happened, the loss of confidence in Hitler would have doomed his regieme. Europe had become deeply introverted, however, and Britain didn't care at all, (yes, because of the terms of the original Treaty of Versailles being so harsh).

If Britain and France had backed up the Czechs, they could have easily held off the Germans, and their land and border defences stretched right into the heart of Germany. Hitler couldn't even nearly have afforded to fight a war on two fronts in those days. Again, everyone's to busy worrying about the depression to take any notice.

If America had joined with Britain and France even at this late point they could have scared Germany off. They were too busy isolationists.

If the Soviet Union hadn't (following an isolationist policy ^_^) signed that pact, (the name of which I forget), agreeing on non-agression with Germany, Hitler wouldn't have dared to start the war with the extra front just waiting to break open.

Anyway, there are about a hundred and one reasons why WWII happened. Yes, if the terms of the first treaty hadn't been so very harsh, the second war probably wouldn't have happened. But the bizzare state of affairs in the German government, and depression, and consequently the determination not to 'meddle' with other countries, were just as important. Without all of these coincidences conspiring together, the war would never have happened. Everyone involved was pretty badly short sighted, really.

To Junk-Man:
Yes America was in a depression, but so was the rest of the world, (except the Soviet Union, who weren't trading with anyone), and Germany was practically on the brink of collapse even before the crash. What recovery seemed to have been made was pretty illusory, considering it was based on loans from other countries. Hitler had totally failed to establish Autarky, so if the rest of the world had actually imposed sanctions instead of appeasing Hitler, Germany would have whithered within a few months.

There was a body with essentially the same role as the UN during that period, the League of Nation. Because America refused to join it, because it adopted an isolation stance, it was completely impotent, (other factors contributed, of course - this was only one of them).

I appear to have wandered completely off topic here, nevermind. Maybe we should make a WWII thread...