Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[Eddo36]

It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I bet they're still looking for WMD's while they're at it, too right?

[taks]

they'd have better luck focusing on syria for those stockpiles.

 

taks

[Volourn]

Oh, SNAP!

[JediMasterWeasel]

Hmm...I don't really have much to say other than more troops=more violence=more needless death.

[Sand]

If Saddam had WMDs He would have used them when we invaded.

[Volourn]

No. Using that logic he'd have used them in the Gulf War against the evil US... but, he didn't... *shrug*

 

His war plan consisted of hoping the US and allies would buckle udner other countries' pressuring them.. He played the Blinking game... and, he lost...

Edited January 11, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

The reason he didn't use them is because he didn't have any at the time we invaded.

[taks]

no kidding, he shipped them all to syria while the UN was waffling around trying to decide what to do.

 

taks

[Sand]

And your proof of that? Also that would be tactically stupid. If an invading army was coming in why get rid of your most powerful weapons that you can use?

[metadigital]

It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I bet they're still looking for WMD's while they're at it, too right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you are keeping up with current affairs. The commission searched and reported that there were none to be found.

 

But you miss my point, and make light of the deaths of all those poor innocent people who suffered and died horribly under Saddam, to make your na

[alanschu]

You are grasping at straws here. I already explained how Iraq's situation is different to that of either Australia or Canada, and how and why those countries are already covered by what I said. Keep nitpicking if you want, because there's not much else to do about that particular point.

 

It's funny, because that's the first thing I thought of when you brought up places that were merely "close" to big conflicts (and therefore not actually a part of your criteria). Furthermore, you talk about how Canadians and Australians would have shared in the conflcts of the British, because at one time they were considered British. If that is the case, then you could argue that the American Civil War was not necessary, since they would have shared in these same conflicts. Except that it goes against the concept of a Nation, and how when Canada and Australia were formed, the people lost the trait of being British, and obtained the identiy of being Canadian and Australian, respectfully. Hence, the nations of Canada and Australia were born. (As an aside, some would argue that Canada isn't technically a Nation-State, since there is a distinct nation within Canada, known as Quebec. THe situation becomes muddied when people residing in the area of Quebec, still consider themselves to be Canadians).

 

Explaining how Iraq's situation is different is nice, but the examples of Australia and Canada were posed in response to the assertion that "successful" nations required civil war, revolution, or devastating conflict.

 

 

A war that lasted for less than a year (with major operations ending two months after the start) and what, maybe 100k dead? No, I don't think that's quite devastating when compared, for instance to Red October or the Thirty Years War. Even more so, when considering that the civil war that would probably have ensued is being artificially prevented. It didn't have much impact in the culture of the country either, nor have there been many of the uglier things associated with war such as ethnic cleansing. For a war that utterly destroyed the Iraqi state, I think it was rather neat and tidy, frankly.

 

Fair enough. I was thinking that the conflict might not just entail the recent occupation, but rather the conflicts extending into perhaps the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the whole situation from The Gulf War, including the embargoes, up until current occupation.

 

 

My bad. Reading Hades gets old real quick, so I wasn't following what he was saying. I was, however, answering a question you had posed. I don't see how that makes my comments irrelevant, as I was simply explaining my original statement after you questioned its validity. If you don't want to be caught flat-footed in discussions, don't leave yourself open like that, not even with Hades.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your comments weren't completely irrelevant, they just weren't as relevant as they could be. You expanded the discussion into something greater than the question I posed to Hades. In essence, you didn't just answer my question. My question pertained specifically to civil wars. Your answer expanded on it. For clarity, here's my original post:

 

Have all "successful" nations had civil wars?

 

I'm sorry if you weren't following the discussion from Hades' side as well, but there's little I can do about that.

[alanschu]

And your proof of that?  Also that would be tactically stupid.  If an invading army was coming in why get rid of your most powerful weapons that you can use?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The same reason why the US would probably be hesitant to start firing chemical weapons and nuclear bombs on American soil?

[Gorgon]

You can't really win against an enemy who's only prerequisite for continuing the effort is the will to do so, while your efforts are being undermined on the home front.

 

Bush and Blair both made a point to state from the beginning that they were in it for the long run, whether it was popular or not, but the circumstances are changing; the rising resistance to the deployment can't be ignored forever,even evoking the war on terror is failing to produce the desired results.

 

Bush may or may not be correct in assuming he can produce'victory',whatever that is, but history tells us that the pressures on and the sacrifices of the American population are likely to be a greater deciding factor than overwhelming military superiority.

 

As much as the right wing initially hated the Vietnam analogies, they just wouldn't go away, and how could they, being so deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

 

 

 

 

Point of interest : http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/567702.html

Edited January 11, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

And your proof of that?  Also that would be tactically stupid.  If an invading army was coming in why get rid of your most powerful weapons that you can use?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The same reason why the US would probably be hesitant to start firing chemical weapons and nuclear bombs on American soil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but this is Hussein. He has used such weapons on his own people before.

[Volourn]

Only in controlled instances; not just willy nilly. If eh were have sued them on the US; he wouldn't even be able to try to cover it up.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

So? His reign was at an end no matter what. If you have WMDs and they are going to get you no matter what, use them and take as many of the enemy you can before they get you.

[Volourn]

Not as fun to be a dictator if you have no one to dictate to...

[alanschu]

So?  His reign was at an end no matter what.  If you have WMDs and they are going to get you no matter what, use them and take as many of the enemy you can before they get you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Perhaps Hussien was not as wild and reckless when it comes to dispensing some weapons as some may believe.

 

OR, he felt it more prudent to save them for a different purpose.

[Eddo36]

It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I bet they're still looking for WMD's while they're at it, too right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you are keeping up with current affairs. The commission searched and reported that there were none to be found.

 

But you miss my point, and make light of the deaths of all those poor innocent people who suffered and died horribly under Saddam, to make your na

Edited January 12, 2007 by Eddo36

[metadigital]

Making ludicrous statements based on nothing but your own opinion may provide your ego with some (obviously needed) support, but it does not further your argument.

[Eddo36]

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2774&lang=en

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

So much for your sources. Illegal war caused by illegal people to other illegal people making illegal problems.

 

Some folks in this thread can't get anymore wrong than that.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Eddo36

[Dark Moth]

I think he's not referring so much as to the war being illegal as he is to just the vast bulk of your statements being completely ridiculous and dull-witted (yet rather entertaining to read). Frankly I don't know which is funnier - your statements themselves or the fact that you actually place yourself on a higher moral pedestal than others.

 

Also, if you think Bush is a dictator, try moving to North Korea, then see if your opinion's still the same. That, or stop wasting intelligent peoples' time with your nonsense.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Dark Moth

[alanschu]

I think he's just bitter because he's not over there himself ^_^

[Volourn]

Anyone who claims that Bush is a dictator doens't know what a dictator is. If he was one, those who constantly bash him in the US would all be vanishing into thin air. Hmmm..

Edited January 12, 2007 by Volourn

[metadigital]

How can you have an "illegal war"?

 

Whose law are you using? Countries aren't subject to laws, without agreeing to them via a treaty.

The ICJ condemns the illegal invasion of Iraq in the clear absence of Security Council authority -this constitutes a great leap backward in the international rule of law.

"International Commission of Jurists", gee I'll bet the US government is quaking in their boots at the pronouncement from these guys.

 

Oh, wait, this is who they are:

The International Commission of Jurists is dedicated to the primacy, coherence and implementation of international law and principles that advance human rights.

There is no international law. I'd be surprised if the US has ratified their authority; and (unlike individuals born into a country), individual countries have primacy. There are barely laws that govern individual countries.

 

Anyway, to continue quoting from YOUR source:

Belligerents are obliged to treat humanely all persons in their power. They must not attack any persons surrendering. All parties to the conflict must take special care to distinguish between military objectives and civilian persons or objects. The latter may not be made a target of attack. The ICJ would like to stress that all States must scrupulously observe the rules prohibiting or limiting the use of certain weapons. No weapon that is excessively cruel or by nature indiscriminate may be used, even if it is not the object of a treaty prohibition.

Every point there was broached by the "enemy combatants" in Iraq. No wonder the US was peeved that they were fighting a bunch of people who fight without concern for ANY of these. And you call yourself a humanitarian. tsk tsk

 

As for your second link:

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The US and Britain acted on their own legal interpretation of resolution 1441. You can't have it both ways; you can't advocate the legal system (i.e. your ICJ, above) AND rule out due legal process for the countries.

 

See the problem here yet? Even though you've made up your mind that events are a certain way, that doesn't mean your fantasy matches reality.

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

I guess all the nay-sayers were wrong: the elections were held and there is now a sovereign Iraqi government.

 

So much for your rabid rantings about "illegal war"; I see a legitimate democratic Iraqi government, voted for by the beleaguered people who were being starved and tortured by Saddam. That sounds like justice to me. And isn't that what law is about?

 

I think he's not referring so much as to the war being illegal as he is to just the vast bulk of your statements being completely ridiculous and dull-witted (yet rather entertaining to read).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>