Iraq Photo Gallery

[Wolf]

Excuse me? I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of your last post. The US forces pulled out of Fallujah and were replaced by 100% Gen-You-Ine Iraqi military forces that are keeping the peace in their own city. Like God intended. I gave you proof of US forces pulling out, and I asked for your proof of the US government engaging in its own personal interest.

I am sorry if I was confusing? But what do you mean by "That is hiding the fact that they are dishonest?" -- That seems very much like speculation to me.

[Dante]

It was a question. I fail to see how withdrawing troops is a sign of hiding dishonest doings so well that they can't be spotted.

[SurlyPIG]

If I say "I love you like a brother" and then proceed to shoot you in the face, it's very likely that, in spite of my kind words, I will still be convicted of murder. Similarly, if a government says "We want to create democracy in this country" and then takes every opportunity to serve its own interests rather than those of the country's people, it will be accused of being a self-serving and imperialistic entity in spite of its kind words.

Fallacious comparison.  First of all, the extend of US action in Iraq (and not just military action) has not been "taking every oportunity to serve its own interests rather than those of the country's people."  If that were true, then you would never have seen rebuilding projects in Iraq, you would never have seen things like water and electricity being not only restored but repaired to good condition after a decade of neglect, you would never have seen any state-sponsored humanitarian efforts, and you would never have seen the military try to bring stability to areas that have no resources.  If the coalition was guilty of what you are accusing, they would have simply taken military control of the oil sands and left the country to starve itself.  Now if you to try and tell me that all of the rebuilding, humanitiarian aid and peace establishment efforts are all just a big coverup to deflect criticism, then it is you need to a) look at the expense bill for the Iraq war and b) compare it to the maximum possible economic benefit that can be gained from control of Iraqi oil supplies because I'll tell you right now that a > b several times over.  So either your premace for the war is dead wrong, or the "money-grubbing imperialist warhawks" are terrible at playing their own game.

And if you want to completely insist that the government had no ulterior motives whatsoever, and cares deeply for the Iraqis, and exists to serve them, and is not, in fact, made up of money-grubbing imperialistic warhawks, the fact that NO positive outcome could ever justify war still remains. The evil means to establish some good end are evil no matter what.

Oh really?  No positive outcome eh?  Tell that to the ~150 people that were killed by the Hussein regime every DAY.  If, when this is all over, a free, democratic Iraq is indeed established, try telling them that outcome was unjustly achieved and that if history could be changed that they should still be living under Saddam's regime.

[danielsh]

Yes, A is greater than B. However, consider that the taxpayers bear the brunt of A, whereas the big corporations reaping the benefits of reconstruction see all the benefits of B (and barely pay taxes). Is there rebuilding? Yes, and it's being handled by Bush fund-raisers and family friends who are handed juicy government contracts and given the freedom to do whatever they want to make a profit. If we're not concerned about economic incentives, then how come other countries can't participate in the reconstruction? At this point, wouldn't some competition among contractors be good for the people? Wouldn't it ensure that they receive the highest-quality products at the least expense? Of course it's necessary for us to quell resistance in Iraq; otherwise, how will McDonalds ever move in? How will we ever begin importing oil?

And yes, no positive outcome. The people should not still be living under Saddam's regime, we should have found another way to take care of the problem. Or we should have engaged in military intervention short of WAR (that is, prolonged conflict on the behalf of one state), perhaps by having an exit strategy or a real plan for the region. It is impossible for any state to justify its wars. War is inherently unjust, and is always waged for the benefit of one nation. Altruism simply does not exist in giant capitalist counties.

[Wolf]

Wait, Dust, I'm still confused. You see the withdrawal of troops as an attempt at hiding dishonest doings? I'm not dicking with you, here, I'm genuinely confused.

So, Dan, how is any military intervention "short of war"? Assassins killing each other is not a war per se, but it is a Ghost War. It is still a war. War is inherently unjust because human beings kill each other. If that is so, all military intervention is unjust because it is human beings killing each other. Do not attempt to justify the "short of war" approach by first saying that all war is morally unjust, and then telling me that things with the same moral attributes as war are just because they are not "prolonged conflict on the behalf of one state". That is hypocrisy.

[SurlyPIG]

Economic principle dictates that the economy itself will see the benefits of B, and the fact that you didn't know that there are contracts going to many non-American companies doesn't inspire confidence in your knowledge of the situation.

You may baselessly speculate however much you want about what the true motives were, but in the end, from a utilitarian perspective, the worst forseeable outcome of the war will still be better than the best forseeable outcome of the continued existence of the Baath regime for the greatest number of people.

Tell me, oh wise Dan, how else should Saddam's regime have been toppled?  Diplomacy?  Tried that for twenty-five years: ineffective.  Sanctions?  All that did was starve the people, not the government: ineffective.  And I find it laughable you'd say war is never justified but military vention is...

Military intervention = WAR

You can attach whatever title you want to it, but you will never see me diminish the sacrifice for freedom of soldiers and civillians alike by calling it "military intervention."

[Wolf]

ACElethal, you are a genius.

[GUNWOUNDS]

we must also remember that

[Wolf]

Well, that, and we've been waiting about 50 years now for Castro to die.

He won't.

[danielsh]

War is defined as "A state of open, armed, prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Since I don't live in a world of black and white, I am capable of making the distinction between minor, multilateral, widely-accepted military intervention (for example, to halt genocide) and out-and-out war.

Is it wrong to kill a single human being? Yes. Is it wronger to kill 150 people a day? Yes. But if the morality of a given decision is to be based upon whether it's as bad as what Saddam does, then we've got a long way to go before anything becomes wrong. There are some situations in which military action must be taken to prevent human rights abuses, and I can accept that possibility. But not all military actions are equal.

So why is it war that is more unjust than all that? War is so terrible because it is historically undertaken for the health of a given state. It is historically motivated by less-than-laudable desires. It is always more than is necessary to accomplish a laudable end. It is always defended with moral statements that are only applied when it benefits the state. It is always wrong. (Why are we ignoring Sudan? Why won't President Bush call what is so obviously genocide by its name?)

I never claimed to have all the answers, and I don't know what else we could have done about Saddam. Maybe the war could have been justified---maybe this one example could have changed all my beliefs---if we had prepared an exit strategy, or concerned ourselves with human rights, or been multilateral, or acted in any other way to illustrate our good intentions. But that has not, by my estimation, been the case.

Baselessly? I'm analyzing what happened in Iraq and comparing it to the Bush Administration's rhetoric. If you want to dispute the facts I've pointed out, feel free. Will the economy benefit because a handful of corporations do? Probably. But how does that help the American people? What makes that something desirable? Don't start talking about the sacrifice of our soldiers---that's a strawman and you know it.

[Wolf]

How is soldiers' sacrifice a strawman?

[GUNWOUNDS]

How is soldiers' sacrifice a strawman?

i thought a strawman was attacking an irrelevant issue

soldiers dying are irrelevant?......

:-

[nemafakei]

Now that's taking things out of context.

The issue of the bravery and sacrifices of soldiers in a war does not affect the rights and wrongs of starting the war in the first place, and Dan seems to be anticipating an argument of "How dare you belittle the efforts of such brave men".

[danielsh]

You can attach whatever title you want to it, but you will never see me diminish the sacrifice for freedom of soldiers and civillians alike by calling it "military intervention."

Nema's got it. Reading the sentence above, it seems that ACElethal is trying to equate war with the soldiers fighting it, thus twisting my argument into "those who fight wars are ignoble and despicable" (which, for the record, it is not). To the best of my knowledge, to create a strawman is to argue against something in which nobody really believes to distract from the actual argument---ergo, I characterize bringing the sacrifice of soldiers into a debate about the inherent injustice of war as a strawman.

[SurlyPIG]

You missed my point entirely and the strawman is your own.  "Dont spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting," as per Judge Judy, is comparable to your euphemising the conflict in Iraq.  Despite all your criticism of the actions of the coalition, your alternative solution to the war ("war") is still war ("military intervention").

War is defined as "A state of open, armed, prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Since I don't live in a world of black and white, I am capable of making the distinction between minor, multilateral, widely-accepted military intervention (for example, to halt genocide) and out-and-out war.

Fair enough, I'll humour you.  You believe that the action of the coalition constitutes as war, no?  And I assume what you call "military intervention" is less than war, no?  It's plain obvious to me that any military action lesser in principle design than the action executed by the coalition would be a failure at truly ousting Saddam and establishing democracy and stability in Iraq.  Its ridiculous to me that you suggest otherwise.  Just look at the instability that still exists; if there can be that much chaos with however many hundred-thousand troops there are in Iraq, just imagine what the situation would be if the forces were more limited.

Is it wrong to kill a single human being? Yes. Is it wronger to kill 150 people a day? Yes. But if the morality of a given decision is to be based upon whether it's as bad as what Saddam does, then we've got a long way to go before anything becomes wrong. There are some situations in which military action must be taken to prevent human rights abuses, and I can accept that possibility. But not all military actions are equal.

That's the smartest thing you've said yet.  I may not steadfastly support the war, the way it was fought or the reasons for which it was fought, but because, by and large, the worst possible outcome of the war is and was more desireable than the uncontested continuation of the Baathist regime, I'm still able to recognize that the results of the war were positive and outweigh the costs.  Does that mean I start drooling every time I Bush tells me that God is on his side?  No.

So why is it war that is more unjust than all that? War is so terrible because it is historically undertaken for the health of a given state. It is historically motivated by less-than-laudable desires. It is always more than is necessary to accomplish a laudable end. It is always defended with moral statements that are only applied when it benefits the state. It is always wrong. (Why are we ignoring Sudan? Why won't President Bush call what is so obviously genocide by its name?)

What you call war, I call an imperialistic takeover.  And as to the former, I tend to agree.  But just because there are more and greater problems being completely ignored or even economically sponsored like Sudan or Saudi Arabia, it doesn't mean Iraq should suffer the same fet when there is a chance for liberation.  Whether or not that chance is driven by imperialistic greed, petty trans-generational leadership grudges or whatever spin the anti-war types put on it is less important than taking that chance.

I never claimed to have all the answers, and I don't know what else we could have done about Saddam. Maybe the war could have been justified---maybe this one example could have changed all my beliefs---if we had prepared an exit strategy, or concerned ourselves with human rights, or been multilateral, or acted in any other way to illustrate our good intentions. But that has not, by my estimation, been the case.

More than forty countries supported the coalition, even though only a handful of those countries actually contributed a military force.  And the coalition made every effort to make it as multilateral as possible.  And under the UN, human rights violations are not a legitimate cause for military action.  Had Colin Powell gone to the UN and said "We want to invade Iraq to remove an opressive regime and improve the lives of the Iraqi people," the SC would never have jumped on board because it goes against UN principle.  However, a breech of a previous, war-ending agreement (ie the Gulf-War ending WMD restrictions) would be legitimate, legal cause for war under the UN.  That option was pursued, Dan.  And the coalition illustrates humanitarian, philanthropic intentions in many, many ways.  You just don't often see them because good news is no news in the world of corporate media.  A news story about American soldiers dispensing food aid isn't going to shock a lot of people into watching.

Baselessly? I'm analyzing what happened in Iraq and comparing it to the Bush Administration's rhetoric. If you want to dispute the facts I've pointed out, feel free. Will the economy benefit because a handful of corporations do? Probably. But how does that help the American people? What makes that something desirable? Don't start talking about the sacrifice of our soldiers---that's a strawman and you know it.

You know, though it is a wise precaution to assume corruption wherever there is a chance for corruption, it really isn't fair and isn't condusive with establishing the truth.  The companies signed to rebuilding contracts in Iraq may have ties to the administration, which, though it makes me uneasy, does not detract from the fact that those companies were the best for the job.  And I addressed the stawman comment further up I think...

[SurlyPIG]

ACElethal, you are a genius.

[GUNWOUNDS]

heheh  nice.

[Dante]

Wait, Dust, I'm still confused. You see the withdrawal of troops as an attempt at hiding dishonest doings? I'm not dicking with you, here, I'm genuinely confused.

No, I don't. That's just the problem. I see nothing in the withdrawal of troops that suggests the Bush administration is being dishonest and hiding it well.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the 'war' still happened. And no matter what reasons you throw up, it was still meddling in affairs that were none of our business. Even if the consequences are good (and I'm not so sure they are right now) that does not justify an attack. Neither do paper-thin excuses, cases in point: WMD, human rights. The first evidently do not exist and the second were not our concern. . The fact is, we went somewhere we shouldn't, did something we shouldn't, and are now not saying what we should.

Well, that, and we've been waiting about 50 years now for Castro to die.

He won't.

Sooner or later, he will. Everyone does. It's just a matter of waiting.

we must also remember that

[Wolf]

Okay, I now more clearly understand your point. So, you say that there is no evidence that Bush is being dishonest, but, even so, the war was still none of our business?

I think I can handle that. :)

[Dante]

No, no, no, no, no... I see plenty of evidence that the Bush Administration is dishonest. Lying about WMD for a start.

The problem is that they're being very bad at being dishonest, and it shows. Now if they were good at being dishonest, I might actually have some measure of respect for them. As it is I don't. At all. And I don't support the war either way.

[Leto le Juste]

It is the first time you are applause by someone here, right?

;D