Validation for the war in Iraq - Nubblies.net Forums

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 01:01 PM

Weapons of mass destruction were listed as one of the main reasons to go to war with Iraq, but with the war being over no major WMD being found, can the war in Iraq still be justified? Many would argue that we should have entered Iraq on human rights violations alone (the fact that you don't think we should invade other nations for such reasons is a question of foreign policy and the sovereignty of a country.)

Hopefully meaningful discussion will ensue.

Orgazmo · 11-13-2003, 01:31 PM

Did you mean to post this in STC?

Titan · 11-13-2003, 01:32 PM

I would have voted, but there was no, "I'm so blinded by my love for George W. Bush that I can't make a logical conclusion."

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 01:59 PM

Feel free to move it whereever you want, I just thought it might degrade to shit-talking. Move it whereever you think it fits best.

Orgazmo · 11-13-2003, 02:01 PM

You're probably right. We really need a debate forum (as mentioned by some nubblite scholars earlier in general chat).

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 02:02 PM

Yeah, that was sorta what I was going for when I originally suggested a political forum, but debate would actually be a better idea. Sort of the opposite of purely shit-talking.

Trout Sniffer · 11-13-2003, 02:36 PM

The idea of them having weapons of mass destructions sure as hell wasn't the only reason for us going over there. It gave us a good excuse to invade Iraq. I think it was a good call on Mr. Bush's part.

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 02:41 PM

"Operation Iraqi Freedom".
Mission statement or good political positioning?
I think a good deal of the former, but still some of the latter.

Ugly Bastard · 11-13-2003, 02:51 PM

Why don't we just rename the "This Or That" forum the "Debate" forum, and save the sexspace.

I voted "Yes..." through clinched teeth. It pisses me off quite a great deal that we didn't actually find any WoMD over there, but WoMD or not, you can't change the fact that Iraq (and the world for that matter) is a better place without Saddam Hussein in control of a country. Does this mean that we had the right to waltz in there and take his country away from him? I dunno...probably not. But we did, and it's over now, so we just have to live with it.

-Ugly Bastard

[ November 13, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Ugly Bastard ]

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 02:53 PM

Tots are very different from the kind of threads that would be in a debate forum. Tots are more for general tomfoolery.

Ugly Bastard · 11-13-2003, 03:04 PM

pliedes-

If we renamed ToT to Debate, maybe we'd treat it as such, and start taking it more seriously. Do we really need a forum for all the threads that are started in ToT? I think not...we can still post them in the Debate Forum, 'cause debating whether or not you'd rather have sex with a man or a dog is just as much of a debate as who should be President in '04.

-Ugly Bastard

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 03:15 PM

While they could fit in the same category, it's more in our best interest to seperate the two which are obviously very different. It wouldn't hurt to have more specified forums.

Ugly Bastard · 11-13-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
It wouldn't hurt to have more specified forums.

I suppose. You're like the Democrat of the message board that wants more programs implemented, and more tax dollars, and more big shit.

I'm just the conservative that thinks the simpler and easier to navigate it is, the better.

I'm not suggesting either one of us is right, I'm just pointing out the humor I find in this situation.

-Ugly Bastard

StDx · 11-13-2003, 04:36 PM

Back on topic...

There are a lot of people that this world would be better without... Saddam doesn't even make the top 10. He was never a threat to our security.

WMD's and our security were cited as the reasons for this war, not freeing Apu and Habib.
Operation Iraqi Freedom? Should've been called Operation Iraqi Liberation... at least we would've had an honest acronym.

It is good, however, to see our glorious president fail in nearly the same way his father did.

[ November 13, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: StDx ]

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 04:43 PM

Ugly, it might be simpler, but not necessarily easier to navigate. But it is humorous

Stdx, wow, that was a hilarious acronym, and I'm not joking when I say I bet they actually thought of that, then reconsidered when their realized what it spelled.

Nevertheless, what do you think about foreign powers intervening in other countries matters? Obviously Saddamy was a horrific dictator who should be removed from power, but should other countries who have the power to take him out do so? I realize they would be infringing upon that countries sovereignty, but is it exceptable in some cases?

Titan · 11-13-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ugly Bastard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pliedes:
It wouldn't hurt to have more specified forums.

I suppose. You're like the Democrat of the message board that wants more programs implemented, and more tax dollars, and more big shit.

I'm just the conservative that thinks the simpler and easier to navigate it is, the better.

I'm not suggesting either one of us is right, I'm just pointing out the humor I find in this situation.</font>[/quote]The point is, Ugly's right.
TorT's are debates, debates that lead to discussion, much like the political and theological debates that Pliedes is suggesting. Changing the This or That forum into the Debate forum, isn't changing anything but the title, and making it clear where serious debates can also be held.

Not to mention things would be much more simply and efficiently organized. There's no reason to create separate forums for the same kind of topics.

Better yet, you could even call it the "Opinion Forum". That way the title is not only inclusive to the TorT's and serious debates, but also such things as "Top 5" lists.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
Obviously Saddamy was a horrific dictator who should be removed from power, but should other countries who have the power to take him out do so? I realize they would be infringing upon that countries sovereignty, but is it acceptable in some cases?

I think it's completely morally permissible... politically permissible? I don't know, but in this case that's evidently secondary, which seems humane to me.

[ November 13, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Titan ]

ProfessorNumber · 11-13-2003, 08:24 PM

From what I have read in the news (and by news I mean biased Democratic magazines), it appears to me, that people felt a war with Iraq was justified, even before the WMD issue was raised. HOWEVER, when that particular issue was raised, it severly discredited Bush. It made him look like a fool who was making up excuses to fund a war.

Not only that, but Bush's administration should have done far more research than they did. Many years ago, Saddam DID buy Uranium yellow-cake, which can be refined into weapons grade plutonium. It is also known that Saddam tried to buy more yellow-cake recently, however, it is widely presumed that he DIDN'T. Is it bad that he has/wanted to buy yellow-cake? Yes. Is yellow-cake a WMD? No. This is where the problems begin; the stupid British mistakenly reported that Saddam had bought yellow-cake recently, and had tried to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration did send a man over to the Middle East and to Europe to investigate the matter. Nonetheless, the conservatives completely disregarded his report, and people like Condi Rice(a complete super bitch), made allegations that Saddam had WMD's. Then came the Kicker: Bush's "State of The Union" speech cited "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a reason for the war on Iraq. Bush himself did not write that word in there. However, he and his subordinates should have certainly looked into that matter further, before reporting FALSE information on national television.

In my opinion, the war was somewhat justified at the beginning. If only as a symbolic effort, it showed the America would not stand by idly as it was mercilessly attacked. But as the war dragged on, its purpose was tainted by an incredibly long tenure, and false information. At this point, I think it would certainly be in Bush's best interest to find some sort of resolution as quickly as possible. The more "Post-war deaths" there are, the more people will get pissed.

Alpha · 11-13-2003, 08:56 PM

The Three Top Reasons we Went to War (not in order)
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Snuff out Al Qaida Groups
3. Free Iraq

Did we find weapons of mass destruction? No. Did we swear that they had it and even have Powell give a speech at the UN? Yes. Did our "proof" show they had weapons of mass destruction? Yes. So basically, not only did the Bush administration lie and lead the American people on, but also our allies, mainly the Italians and British people. Then, to make this an even bigger deal we lied to all of the UN and told them flat out that Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and didn't find jack fucking shit. Our #1 reason to invade Iraq was not accomplished because either A. We lied. Or B. Saddam is really really good at Hide and Go Seek.

#2 on the other hand was started when Bush claimed that Iraq was a part of the imfamous "Axis of Evil". Then later spread to propaghanda that Iraq was "funding terrorism" or Iraq was giving shelter to those exiled from Afganistan. I ask you to show me credible proof that Saddam Hussain funded 9/11, if you show me that he gave even a fraction of the money that Saudi Arabian Princes and Princesses gave to the Taliban and their attack on America then I will believe that Reason #2 was accomplished and a pat on the back is deserved by Bush. The point remains though that the Hussain administration did NOT fund 9/11 and played no important role in it's execution or planning. #2 is a lost cause that the Bush administration will never live down.

#3, free the Iraqis. I might be a tree hugger of some sorts but even I can see through this bullshit. I'm all about freeing the people and what not, but this is not a reason to go to war. If this was then I have a list for Bush and his council, North Korea, most of Africa, China, Columbia, and to be honest most of South America too. Fact is, reason #3 was created as a scapegoat if we couldn't find the goods, which we didn't. I'm happy that the Iraqi's are democratic and all, but without American occupation I fear that the ill-fated Iraqi government is well... Ill-fated.

Point is, No Operation Iraqi freedom was a crock. I don't like being lie to especially when US lives are on the line. Fuck Bush and his foreign policy. And for once it's not becuase he's republican, it's because he's fucking retarded.

Pliedes · 11-13-2003, 11:00 PM

Alpha, I haven't read your post yet, and I will in 1.5 hours. But you listed the top three reasons we went to war. Even if the first two are null, doesn't that still leave a valid reason for the war with Iraq? Why or why not?

buckeye · 11-14-2003, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
While they could fit in the same category, it's more in our best interest to seperate the two which are obviously very different. It wouldn't hurt to have more specified forums.

i'd almost agree with that but the problem is we arent a big enough forum to further seperate anything. Until we get a rush of active posters there is no need to keep adding and adding and adding. I'm with UB if you want to add a debate forum change the name of a forum that is not getting much traffic.

Alpha · 11-14-2003, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
Doesn't that still leave a valid reason for the war with Iraq? Why or why not?

No. If it is a valid reason for war, then I guess we shouldn't mind when Japan takes over China, when South Korea invades the north, and Mexico storms all the way south of the Andes in the name of liberation.

The third reason is bullshit and is only a fallback plan when the other two didn't work. Would you support taking over China if Bush told us we needed to overthrow their Communist government and better the lives of billions of people? No. And don't pretend you would.

Pliedes · 11-14-2003, 01:23 AM

We don't have to pin 9/11 on Iraqi based terrorist to determine that we need to get rid of them.

Would the people under an oppresive dictator be better off if they were liberated by a country who had the power to do so? Moreso, is such an action permissible? There lies the crux of the issue.

I'm gonna build a hypothetical situation for two reasons: 1) Just to get into the foriegn policy issue, which is the heart of the issue, and 2) because I thought up cool names for the countries.

Don't relate it to Iraq and America. Let's make up new countries. Fackengooseland is a super powerful country with influence all over the world. The Fackengoosians live in a republic where people aren't oppressed, in fact, quite the opposite, they participate in the government. Now, the people for Narfital are ruled by a horrible oppresive dictator how mercilessly murders tens of thousands of his own people just to stay in power and build the riches of the elite few.

Now, if the Fackengooses intervene, they will save thousands of lives and ultimately lead to a better life for the Narfitals. But they would be encroaching up Narfitals sovereignity as a nation. So at what point does it become justified for the Fackengooses to help out?

ProfessorNumber · 11-14-2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Pliedes
Now, if the Fackengooses intervene, they will save thousands of lives and ultimately lead to a better life for the Narfitals. But they would be encroaching up Narfitals sovereignity as a nation. So at what point does it become justified for the Fackengooses to help out?

Excuse me, morals aside, America has NO obligation to do so. Moreover, at what cost does liberating them come at? Is it worth having our men and women die to "rescue" a country that we have no business rescuing?

Your argument makes sense from an ethical standpoint; not from a political.

Pliedes · 11-14-2003, 01:34 AM

Who is talking about America? I'm talking about Fackengooseland.

I realize your point. But what I'm asking is at what point does the ethical standpoint validate political intervention. Apply it to this situation.

ProfessorNumber · 11-14-2003, 01:37 AM

Excellent point. At worst, intervention is justified when it can be done in such a way as to minimize "Fackengooseland" casualties.

Personally, I see no reason for Fackengooseland to declare itself Police and Executioner over Narfital. Doing so would result in long standing repercussions, such as hatred by other nations, or perhaps even more attacks on home soil.

11-13-2003, 01:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,698 Internets: 10	I would have voted, but there was no, "I'm so blinded by my love for George W. Bush that I can't make a logical conclusion."
	I do what the fuck I want.

11-13-2003, 02:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
Trout Sniffer Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Straight Outta Compton Posts: 1,003 Internets: 123	The idea of them having weapons of mass destructions sure as hell wasn't the only reason for us going over there. It gave us a good excuse to invade Iraq. I think it was a good call on Mr. Bush's part.
	The Glyde don't sign no autographs

11-13-2003, 08:24 PM	#17 (permalink)
ProfessorNumber Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,215 Internets: 3373	From what I have read in the news (and by news I mean biased Democratic magazines), it appears to me, that people felt a war with Iraq was justified, even before the WMD issue was raised. HOWEVER, when that particular issue was raised, it severly discredited Bush. It made him look like a fool who was making up excuses to fund a war. Not only that, but Bush's administration should have done far more research than they did. Many years ago, Saddam DID buy Uranium yellow-cake, which can be refined into weapons grade plutonium. It is also known that Saddam tried to buy more yellow-cake recently, however, it is widely presumed that he DIDN'T. Is it bad that he has/wanted to buy yellow-cake? Yes. Is yellow-cake a WMD? No. This is where the problems begin; the stupid British mistakenly reported that Saddam had bought yellow-cake recently, and had tried to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration did send a man over to the Middle East and to Europe to investigate the matter. Nonetheless, the conservatives completely disregarded his report, and people like Condi Rice(a complete super bitch), made allegations that Saddam had WMD's. Then came the Kicker: Bush's "State of The Union" speech cited "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a reason for the war on Iraq. Bush himself did not write that word in there. However, he and his subordinates should have certainly looked into that matter further, before reporting FALSE information on national television. In my opinion, the war was somewhat justified at the beginning. If only as a symbolic effort, it showed the America would not stand by idly as it was mercilessly attacked. But as the war dragged on, its purpose was tainted by an incredibly long tenure, and false information. At this point, I think it would certainly be in Bush's best interest to find some sort of resolution as quickly as possible. The more "Post-war deaths" there are, the more people will get pissed.
	Smoke a cigarette and lie some more -- These conversations kill.

11-13-2003, 08:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
Alpha Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,003 Internets: 82	The Three Top Reasons we Went to War (not in order) 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction 2. Snuff out Al Qaida Groups 3. Free Iraq Did we find weapons of mass destruction? No. Did we swear that they had it and even have Powell give a speech at the UN? Yes. Did our "proof" show they had weapons of mass destruction? Yes. So basically, not only did the Bush administration lie and lead the American people on, but also our allies, mainly the Italians and British people. Then, to make this an even bigger deal we lied to all of the UN and told them flat out that Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and didn't find jack fucking shit. Our #1 reason to invade Iraq was not accomplished because either A. We lied. Or B. Saddam is really really good at Hide and Go Seek. #2 on the other hand was started when Bush claimed that Iraq was a part of the imfamous "Axis of Evil". Then later spread to propaghanda that Iraq was "funding terrorism" or Iraq was giving shelter to those exiled from Afganistan. I ask you to show me credible proof that Saddam Hussain funded 9/11, if you show me that he gave even a fraction of the money that Saudi Arabian Princes and Princesses gave to the Taliban and their attack on America then I will believe that Reason #2 was accomplished and a pat on the back is deserved by Bush. The point remains though that the Hussain administration did NOT fund 9/11 and played no important role in it's execution or planning. #2 is a lost cause that the Bush administration will never live down. #3, free the Iraqis. I might be a tree hugger of some sorts but even I can see through this bullshit. I'm all about freeing the people and what not, but this is not a reason to go to war. If this was then I have a list for Bush and his council, North Korea, most of Africa, China, Columbia, and to be honest most of South America too. Fact is, reason #3 was created as a scapegoat if we couldn't find the goods, which we didn't. I'm happy that the Iraqi's are democratic and all, but without American occupation I fear that the ill-fated Iraqi government is well... Ill-fated. Point is, No Operation Iraqi freedom was a crock. I don't like being lie to especially when US lives are on the line. Fuck Bush and his foreign policy. And for once it's not becuase he's republican, it's because he's fucking retarded.
	Gods are but men with immortal souls.

11-14-2003, 01:37 AM	#25 (permalink)
ProfessorNumber Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,215 Internets: 3373	Excellent point. At worst, intervention is justified when it can be done in such a way as to minimize "Fackengooseland" casualties. Personally, I see no reason for Fackengooseland to declare itself Police and Executioner over Narfital. Doing so would result in long standing repercussions, such as hatred by other nations, or perhaps even more attacks on home soil.
	Smoke a cigarette and lie some more -- These conversations kill.

11-13-2003, 01:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Weapons of mass destruction were listed as one of the main reasons to go to war with Iraq, but with the war being over no major WMD being found, can the war in Iraq still be justified? Many would argue that we should have entered Iraq on human rights violations alone (the fact that you don't think we should invade other nations for such reasons is a question of foreign policy and the sovereignty of a country.) Hopefully meaningful discussion will ensue.

11-13-2003, 01:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,699 Internets: 305662	Did you mean to post this in STC?

11-13-2003, 01:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Feel free to move it whereever you want, I just thought it might degrade to shit-talking. Move it whereever you think it fits best.

11-13-2003, 02:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,699 Internets: 305662	You're probably right. We really need a debate forum (as mentioned by some nubblite scholars earlier in general chat).

11-13-2003, 02:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Yeah, that was sorta what I was going for when I originally suggested a political forum, but debate would actually be a better idea. Sort of the opposite of purely shit-talking.

11-13-2003, 02:41 PM	#8 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	"Operation Iraqi Freedom". Mission statement or good political positioning? I think a good deal of the former, but still some of the latter.

11-13-2003, 02:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Why don't we just rename the "This Or That" forum the "Debate" forum, and save the sexspace. I voted "Yes..." through clinched teeth. It pisses me off quite a great deal that we didn't actually find any WoMD over there, but WoMD or not, you can't change the fact that Iraq (and the world for that matter) is a better place without Saddam Hussein in control of a country. Does this mean that we had the right to waltz in there and take his country away from him? I dunno...probably not. But we did, and it's over now, so we just have to live with it. -Ugly Bastard [ November 13, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Ugly Bastard ]

11-13-2003, 02:53 PM	#10 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Tots are very different from the kind of threads that would be in a debate forum. Tots are more for general tomfoolery.

11-13-2003, 03:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	pliedes- If we renamed ToT to Debate, maybe we'd treat it as such, and start taking it more seriously. Do we really need a forum for all the threads that are started in ToT? I think not...we can still post them in the Debate Forum, 'cause debating whether or not you'd rather have sex with a man or a dog is just as much of a debate as who should be President in '04. -Ugly Bastard

11-13-2003, 03:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	While they could fit in the same category, it's more in our best interest to seperate the two which are obviously very different. It wouldn't hurt to have more specified forums.

11-13-2003, 04:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
StDx Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: right behind you Posts: 931 Internets: 306	Back on topic... There are a lot of people that this world would be better without... Saddam doesn't even make the top 10. He was never a threat to our security. WMD's and our security were cited as the reasons for this war, not freeing Apu and Habib. Operation Iraqi Freedom? Should've been called Operation Iraqi Liberation... at least we would've had an honest acronym. It is good, however, to see our glorious president fail in nearly the same way his father did. [ November 13, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: StDx ]

11-13-2003, 04:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Ugly, it might be simpler, but not necessarily easier to navigate. But it is humorous Stdx, wow, that was a hilarious acronym, and I'm not joking when I say I bet they actually thought of that, then reconsidered when their realized what it spelled. Nevertheless, what do you think about foreign powers intervening in other countries matters? Obviously Saddamy was a horrific dictator who should be removed from power, but should other countries who have the power to take him out do so? I realize they would be infringing upon that countries sovereignty, but is it exceptable in some cases?

11-13-2003, 11:00 PM	#19 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Alpha, I haven't read your post yet, and I will in 1.5 hours. But you listed the top three reasons we went to war. Even if the first two are null, doesn't that still leave a valid reason for the war with Iraq? Why or why not?

11-14-2003, 01:23 AM	#22 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	We don't have to pin 9/11 on Iraqi based terrorist to determine that we need to get rid of them. Would the people under an oppresive dictator be better off if they were liberated by a country who had the power to do so? Moreso, is such an action permissible? There lies the crux of the issue. I'm gonna build a hypothetical situation for two reasons: 1) Just to get into the foriegn policy issue, which is the heart of the issue, and 2) because I thought up cool names for the countries. Don't relate it to Iraq and America. Let's make up new countries. Fackengooseland is a super powerful country with influence all over the world. The Fackengoosians live in a republic where people aren't oppressed, in fact, quite the opposite, they participate in the government. Now, the people for Narfital are ruled by a horrible oppresive dictator how mercilessly murders tens of thousands of his own people just to stay in power and build the riches of the elite few. Now, if the Fackengooses intervene, they will save thousands of lives and ultimately lead to a better life for the Narfitals. But they would be encroaching up Narfitals sovereignity as a nation. So at what point does it become justified for the Fackengooses to help out?

11-14-2003, 01:34 AM	#24 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Who is talking about America? I'm talking about Fackengooseland. I realize your point. But what I'm asking is at what point does the ethical standpoint validate political intervention. Apply it to this situation.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode