America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,717 comments
  • 1,598,208 views
mustafur
it wasn't the reason for invading.
Click to expand...

Well it was, partly, because it established Saddam as an all-time genocidal dictator. That was certainly part of the reason for invading. But there are really two components here, one is justification, and the other is what you hope to accomplish.

Saddam being a mass-murderer fell into both categories. Justification - yes, his rule was evil and anyone was justified in stopping it. What do you hope to accomplish? At least part was to free the Iraqi people of Saddam. I won't say that it represents all of the justification (that includes the terms of the cease fire of the first gulf war), or all of what we hoped to accomplish (there's a lot in the basket).

But his use of chemical weapons (aka WMDs) was definitely part of the reason for invading.
 
Danoff
Well it was, partly, because it established Saddam as an all-time genocidal dictator. That was certainly part of the reason for invading. But there are really two components here, one is justification, and the other is what you hope to accomplish.

Saddam being a mass-murderer fell into both categories. Justification - yes, his rule was evil and anyone was justified in stopping it. What do you hope to accomplish? At least part was to free the Iraqi people of Saddam. I won't say that it represents all of the justification (that includes the terms of the cease fire of the first gulf war), or all of what we hoped to accomplish (there's a lot in the basket).

But his use of chemical weapons (aka WMDs) was definitely part of the reason for invading.
Click to expand...
The words your looking for is partially Justified.

I assume this is an attempt for you to reel out your fishing line, or do you personally believe that the Iraq war was a good thing(either before Hindsight or after)?
 
@Danoff My "problem" (it's not a massive issue, just something I think about) with the justification to invade Iraq is that it still comes across as selective when tens of other countries with bloodthirsty dictators aren't being or haven't been intervened.

Going into Iraq to remove a vicious, dangerous depot? Fine, some or even most would see that as justified.

But why not invade Eritrea, China, North Korea*, Laos and Vietnam*? They're all de jure one-party states without democratic elections. Eritrea in particular has never held legislative elections.

Or why not invade Syria, Zimbabwe, Niger, Sudan, Liberia, Burundi, Sierra Leone or Chad? Each country is either very low on the human development index, very low on the human rights watch records, tangled in a civil war or generally in very bad, undemocratic shape. You could even throw in Saudi Arabia but of course, it's stating the obvious that the United States won't publicly invade or declare war on one of its strongest allies.

I accept what has been said about Iraq being a special case given that Iraq was, essentially, a former ally gone rogue but some of the other countries listed could also fall under the sphere of American influence that justify a military intervention. Liberia in particular; it being founded by American colonists and the ironically repeated history of Afro-American settlers displacing and mistreating the native people in the physical territory where Liberia now is should resonate with a United States looking to right a wrong. Instead, the USA has kept Liberia at arm's length in terms of active and publicly declared military action during the innumerable tumultuous revolutions the country has had.

And I'm not even saying that you should invade Burundi, Chad or Laos, it's just that if one rule applies to one country, surely it should apply to all countries of a similar ilk? Or at the very least potentially apply.

*Yes, that had already happened but them being proxy wars for USA-USSR in 1949 and 1962 is quite different to circumstances as-was in 2003
 
Liquid
@Danoff My "problem" (it's not a massive issue, just something I think about) with the justification to invade Iraq is that it still comes across as selective when tens of other countries with bloodthirsty dictators aren't being or haven't been intervened.

Going into Iraq to remove a vicious, dangerous depot? Fine, some or even most would see that as justified.

But why not invade Eritrea, China, North Korea*, Laos and Vietnam*? They're all de jure one-party states without democratic elections. Eritrea in particular has never held legislative elections.

Or why not invade Syria, Zimbabwe, Niger, Sudan, Liberia, Burundi, Sierra Leone or Chad? Each country is either very low on the human development index, very low on the human rights watch records, tangled in a civil war or generally in very bad, undemocratic shape. You could even throw in Saudi Arabia but of course, it's stating the obvious that the United States won't publicly invade or declare war on one of its strongest allies.

I accept what has been said about Iraq being a special case given that Iraq was, essentially, a former ally gone rogue but some of the other countries listed could also fall under the sphere of American influence that justify a military intervention. Liberia in particular; it being founded by American colonists and the ironically repeated history of Afro-American settlers displacing and mistreating the native people in the physical territory where Liberia now is should resonate with a United States looking to right a wrong. Instead, the USA has kept Liberia at arm's length in terms of active and publicly declared military action during the innumerable tumultuous revolutions the country has had.

And I'm not even saying that you should invade Burundi, Chad or Laos, it's just that if one rule applies to one country, surely it should apply to all countries of a similar ilk? Or at the very least potentially apply.

*Yes, that had already happened but them being proxy wars for USA-USSR in 1949 and 1962 is quite different to circumstances as-was in 2003
Click to expand...
Some Americans view ourselves as conquering heroes, bringers of justice, who would cross all mountains to right all wrongs. Crusading, messianic and Imperial impulses ring righteously among the True Believers. Be careful what you wish for, cold minds are making plans.
 
mustafur
The words your looking for is partially Justified.

I assume this is an attempt for you to reel out your fishing line, or do you personally believe that the Iraq war was a good thing(either before Hindsight or after)?
Click to expand...

You're conflating justification with a "good thing". It's not the same thing. Being justified in doing something does not mean that you should do it.

Liquid
@Danoff My "problem" (it's not a massive issue, just something I think about) with the justification to invade Iraq is that it still comes across as selective when tens of other countries with bloodthirsty dictators aren't being or haven't been intervened.
Click to expand...

Same goes for you. Justification exists with all of those countries. Should we intervene, is it a good idea is dependent on the country and situation. Can we? Yes. Good idea? Not so fast.

Liquid
But why not invade Eritrea, China, North Korea*, Laos and Vietnam*? They're all de jure one-party states without democratic elections. Eritrea in particular has never held legislative elections.
Click to expand...

Each is its own analysis for whether or not it's an intelligent decision.

Liquid
Or why not invade Syria, Zimbabwe, Niger, Sudan, Liberia, Burundi, Sierra Leone or Chad? Each country is either very low on the human development index, very low on the human rights watch records, tangled in a civil war or generally in very bad, undemocratic shape. You could even throw in Saudi Arabia but of course, it's stating the obvious that the United States won't publicly invade or declare war on one of its strongest allies.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that being justified in doing it does not mean it's a good idea. Also, and this is another separable point, it does not mean that we have to do it, or are obliged to. We have not taken on an obligation of freeing North Korea simply because we went in to Iraq.

Liquid
And I'm not even saying that you should invade Burundi, Chad or Laos, it's just that if one rule applies to one country, surely it should apply to all countries of a similar ilk? Or at the very least potentially apply.
Click to expand...

It does. Justification exists for all kinds of actions, perhaps an infinite number even. Same rules. But it is not the entire question.
 
Danoff
You're conflating justification with a "good thing". It's not the same thing. Being justified in doing something does not mean that you should do it.
Click to expand...

Trust me I'm not, that's why I made the seperation.

Generally people make a distinction earlier on in their points as to not confuse the message.

Because you definitely had me earlier on.
 
mustafur
Trust me I'm not, that's why I made the seperation.

Generally people make a distinction earlier on in their points as to not confuse the message.

Because you definitely had me earlier on.
Click to expand...

So you're asking me personally whether I think it was a good idea? I thought it was a good idea at the time. In retrospect, I think I made the same mistake Bush did. I didn't understand how authoritarian the population was. In my personal speculation, Bush made that mistake because he believes that faith is a good thing, and that religion is a positive for the world. Islam means "peace" he said in the video I posted earlier. He didn't seem to either understand or want to understand that Islam means subjugation, which is what all religion means.

For my part, I don't think it was that I misunderstood the nature of religion, I knew it meant subjugation. It was that I misunderstood how willing the population would be to simply declare that despite having been trampled by an evil dictator, that people should be trampled by their own personal preferred flavor of evil dictator. That one was a curve ball for me personally. In hindsight, if I had been a little more mature and experienced, I might have been less optimistic how the population would respond to a post-Saddam world.

I think my experience in that one is one that quite a few people can relate to actually. It's hard to judge pre-Iraq-War-II Danoff by the standards of post-Iraq-War-II information, because it was such an interesting demonstration of a specific scenario. But I think that the current cluster that is Iraq could have been predicted by someone more understanding of human behavior and the region than I am.

Nation building was probably a mistake. As callous as it seems, my guess is that the US would have been better off if we had done a North Korea instead of an Iraq. But the people of North Korea suffer, a lot, because of that.

We face a similar (not quite the same) situation in North Korea (and other countries). And so far our response has been to just let the people suffer. I'm not a big fan of our current approach, but I can't say with certainty what actually would work to help them. Maybe flattening the NK military and handing the region to SK. Seems like a tall order for SK and might just end up ruining two countries for the price of one. I suppose that's what we needed in the Middle East (and maybe what Iraq was supposed to become), a country that we could trust to be peaceful and have the prosperity of the people in mind.

TBH, I'm not sure why you (or anyone) cares whether I think in retrospect it was a good idea.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
So you want to go to war with a country for a zero-casualty infrastructure attack against somebody else?
Click to expand...
Yeah, gas went up a quarter over night and set to go up another quarter by the end of the week. There BS cause they aren't happy about the sanctions is affecting my wallet. But hey y'all called me an idiot when I said they were gonna start back up nukes when they got the pallets of money. I'm just waiting to ignore the comments defending them again...
Eunos_Cosmo
How many American lives and American dollars is MBS's oil equipment worth?
Click to expand...
No lives drone strike the crap out of them. And who cares how much it costs. They don't care how much gas costs me...
 
The fact that the US even remotely supports Saudi Arabia is insulting. It's royal family bankrolled terrorists and not just any terrorists, but the ones that flew planes into our buildings. If anything the US should've straight up attacked Saudi Arabia in 2001.

The US really just needs to get out of the middle east completely because it's a waste of time and money coupled with a bunch of pointless deaths on both sides.

ryzno
Yeah, gas went up a quarter over night and set to go up another quarter by the end of the week. There BS cause they aren't happy about the sanctions is affecting my wallet. But hey y'all called me an idiot when I said they were gonna start back up nukes when they got the pallets of money. I'm just waiting to ignore the comments defending them again...
Click to expand...

Yesterday the average fuel price in Atlanta, Georgia was $2.64/gallon, today it's $2.67/gallon. The average in the state overall is $2.58/gallon, which is $.08 less than the national average.

I don't think you need to worry. It's trending upwards, but there are numerous factors why, including Texas getting hit with a tropical storm that, presumably, took some refineries offline. We get oil from more places than just Saudi Arabia, in fact, 43% of it comes from Canada. Only 9% actually comes from Saudi Arabia and only 16% comes from the Persian Gulf as a whole.
 
ryzno
But hey y'all called me an idiot when I said they were gonna start back up nukes when they got the pallets of money.
Click to expand...
No part of this happened.

Had anyone called you (or anyone else) an idiot, they'd have had a warning for it. What two people were questioning you on was why you thought it was okay for the USA to unilaterally withdraw from a deal it had made and violate an international treaty and an international court ruling by not giving the money it had taken back to the party it had taken it from.

I think what you came up with was that it was just your opinion Iran shouldn't have its own money back from a deal the USA had reneged on, because it might "misappropriate" it. "It" being "its own money".
 
The US should stay away from these conflicts, they should have known by now. They will be making a target of themselves if they interfere. Let these countries fight this themselves, both governments are ruled by fundamentalist zealots, so I don't care if any of them wins, both of them will be weaker on the end.
 
ryzno
Yeah, gas went up a quarter over night and set to go up another quarter by the end of the week. There BS cause they aren't happy about the sanctions is affecting my wallet. But hey y'all called me an idiot when I said they were gonna start back up nukes when they got the pallets of money. I'm just waiting to ignore the comments defending them again...
No lives drone strike the crap out of them. And who cares how much it costs. They don't care how much gas costs me...
Click to expand...

1. Gas would be cheaper if Iran wasn't sanctioned.
2. Do you think if the US strikes Iran oil prices will go up or down? I personally can't fathom a situation where they go down.
3. If we go to war with Iran, that will cost a lot more in military funding than a few cents at the pump. Its your tax dollars.
4. They have shown the ability to take out our drones. Did you miss the part about all-out-war? You think we can defend against that with some drones? Iran is a sophisticated adversary and it's their home turf - underestimating the challenge got us into such quagmires as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They have a far more widely distributed network of assets and allies, including Russia, than Iraq did. If you think a true conflict with Iran would be just some limited drone action...I've got a nice bridge for you right this way...
5. Who said anything about nukes? Are you really worried about nukes? Do you think Iran will nuke Georgia?
 
Remember, The President is in bed with the Saudis the very people who funded the terrorists that did 9/11 and a big reason for the USA's massive operation in the Mid east in the first place.

But someone like Snowden who tried to defend the Constitution can't even be promised a Fair Trial in the US and is labelled a US traitor.

There is no Logic.
 
Biggles
.. do you actually mean a direct result of Trump's actions? :confused:
Click to expand...

I guess I could have worded it differently, but for whatever reason there are a ton of people that don't think the Iran crisis is a result of Trump's action. That surprises me because it seems like it couldn't be any more obvious that Trump is the cause, but maybe some people just need a flashing neon sign that says "Trump did this".
 
Joey D
I guess I could have worded it differently, but for whatever reason there are a ton of people that don't think the Iran crisis is a result of Trump's action. That surprises me because it seems like it couldn't be any more obvious that Trump is the cause, but maybe some people just need a flashing neon sign that says "Trump did this".
Click to expand...

Trump declared economic war on Iran, backing them into a corner where they were forced to completely capitulate ... or retaliate. His motivation for doing this? It doesn't seem out of character for it to be based almost entirely on a desire to reverse a key accomplishment of Obama's foreign policy.

Now the US is apparently preparing to devote military resources to protecting a terrorist-supporting theocratic, feudal monarchy from a terrorist-supporting theocratic quasi-democracy. :odd:
 
Biggles
Trump declared economic war on Iran, backing them into a corner where they were forced to completely capitulate ... or retaliate. His motivation for doing this? It doesn't seem out of character for it to be based almost entirely on a desire to reverse a key accomplishment of Obama's foreign policy.

Now the US is apparently preparing to devote military resources to protecting a terrorist-supporting theocratic, feudal monarchy from a terrorist-supporting theocratic quasi-democracy. :odd:
Click to expand...

I just hope this ordeal will wake up some Trumpsupporters that voted for him because he promised he would pull out and put America first.
 
PocketZeven
I just hope this ordeal will wake up some Trumpsupporters that voted for him because he promised he would pull out and put America first.
Click to expand...

Nah, Trump supporters want a war, especially a war against "brown people" and/or Muslims. Trump himself probably even wants a war since it's something that pretty much every president is known for.
 
There should be a number of other things that should’ve woke up Trump supporters before this. Promising to end a war though, is a pretty popular campaign promise I’m not sure how many followed through on.
 
Trump fills NRG stadium with Indian Americans in Houston today. Why in the world would all of these POC show up to see a white supremacist president? He must really be paying them well. :rolleyes:

 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
435 436 437
Replies
13K
Views
550K
Fezzik
Fezzik
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
431 432 433
Replies
13K
Views
652K
Eggstor
Eggstor
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
17K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
632
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
6K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back