Why do I have the feeling that...

The Core RPGC Main Forum
21

Why don’t we go after all the other BAD MEN? Oh, because the war was more about oil and geopolitical influence than getting rid of a BAD MAN and saving the poor Iraqis.

“America cant win against north korea, or china.”

I think we can win against North Korea, but it’ll be very bloody. We can’t militarily invade China but what we can do is limit China through uh ‘containment’, basically doing everything possible to stop them from expanding their political and economic spheres. Such as getting rid of North Korea, for one.

22

No, I think you’re missing the point. The war has nothing to do with whether “some men are better off dead” because it didn’t kill Saddam Hussein, it murdered 539 Americans, 10,000 Iraqi civilians and thousands of Iraqi soldiers. It is loathsome beyond belief to use the name of the Iraqi people to justify the murder of those same people - and because it was completely unjustified and unprovoked, against the will of the entire world and half of America as well, murder is exactly what it was. What your “point” amounts to is that Saddam Hussein has no right to kill people, but we, defenders of all that is holy, are entitled to kill anyone we want, including those very same people, and then claim that we did them a favour, and not even have to take accountability for having lied in the process. That’s no different from the Inquisitors in the 1400s, who thought that they saved people’s souls by burning those people at the stake.

EDIT: Furthermore, you’re intentionally misrepresenting the antiwar position. The exact reason we are angry at Bush is because he started a war based on lies, saying someone was a threat when he wasn’t, claiming the existence of WMDs when none existed, talking about uranium purchases where none took place, planning this war from day one, pushing it through not only without provocation, but without the slightest regard for anything at all, and then hypocritically talking about “liberating” the Iraqi people after coming up with no plan whatsoever to actually improve their lives.

23

We’re not burning Iraqis at the stake.

And I could really care less who died, because I really do believe that the ends justify the means, and even if we killed thousands or tens of thousands, that’s nothing compared to what would’ve echoed from Saddam’s reign in the future.

And it’s also so much more than just saving lives. It was an attempt to end the suffering of many MILLIONS. You know what a million is, right? It’s a thousand thousands. That’s a lot of suffering. And even though a lot still are, a few lonely mothers/wives can’t compare to millions of people who’re deprived of the basic rights that everyone else in the world takes for granted.

your “point” amounts to is that Saddam Hussein has no right to kill people, but we, defenders of all that is holy, are entitled to kill anyone we want, including those very same people, and then claim that we did them a favour, and not even have to take accountability for having lied in the process.
This has nothing to do with anyone being defenders of all that is holy. It has everything to do with killing few for the benefit of many, which is what war has been about since the beginning of time, and which I think was a very noble goal.

24

“And I could really care less who died, because I really do believe that the ends justify the means, and even if we killed thousands or tens of thousands, that’s nothing compared to what would’ve echoed from Saddam’s reign in the future.”

What were the ends, then? The answer most supporters of the war give is wrong. If you’re willing to say the means justified the real ends of the war(American dominance), than you have a valid argument.

25

Originally posted by Tomiko
We’re not burning Iraqis at the stake.
No, we’re surrounding their towns in barbed wire, wantonly destroying their property, decreeing that we won’t allow certain electoral outcomes, keeping thousands of people in concentration camps, outlawing protests, holding families hostage, confiscating money from the country’s oil resources and spending it in secret, and of course constantly engaging in “accidents” involving itchy trigger fingers. And that’s just the things we hear about. Many Iraqis are now saying that they were better off under Hussein because unemployment wasn’t as high and because there was no danger of a takeover by radical Muslim groups (which are very popular now). By the way, women didn’t have to “wear masks” under Hussein because he was a secular dictator and not a religious one.

Originally posted by Tomiko
It has everything to do with killing few for the benefit of many,
That’s exactly why I compared you to an Inquisitor. No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies from the comfort of one’s armchair half the world away, without asking those actual people about it or really making any plan for improving their lives other than killing them. Anyone who assumes that right has delusions of godhood. It’s exactly that kind of reasoning that led us to create Hussein’s dictatorship and encourage his crimes back in the eighties.

26

Uh yeah, ok, godhood, whatever.

I’ll tell you what I told Maz on IRC: Suffering is bad. I see people who end (or at least soften the blow of) suffering as heroes.

What were the ends, then? The answer most supporters of the war give is wrong.
Then you tell me, and I’ll decide for myself whether I think the war was just.

No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies from the comfort of one’s armchair half the world away, without asking those actual people about it or really making any plan for improving their lives other than killing them.
Yeah, because we all know liberating a country can only be done by selectively killing all non-civillians because the gears of the world just fit together all nicely like that.

And my chair doesn’t have arms.

27

The end was American dominance over the Middle-East, and American global dominance in general, in the belief that American dominance will create a less suffering Middle East and a less suffering world.

28

Originally posted by Tomiko
Yeah, because we all know liberating a country can only be done by selectively killing all non-civillians because the gears of the world just fit together all nicely like that.
Yes, exactly: Wars are savage, chaotic, unpredictable, and kill the innocent much more than the guilty. That’s <i>exactly</i> the reason why wars should only be fought in self-defence and as a last resort. You’re saying, “well, all war involves lying and murdering, so it’s okay that we lied and murdered.” But that’s exactly why we <i>shouldn’t</i> start aggressive wars in the first place. No noble ideology can survive in wartime, especially when it’s forced onto the same people we’re ostensibly “liberating” without the consent of anyone who will actually be directly affected by it. That’s what I meant (and mean) by “delusions of godhood” - you’re considering yourself entitled to make life or death decisions for people whom you know nothing about, and who never gave you the authority to decide for them, and who never wanted you to invade their lives, and then claim that you’re doing a good thing after you’ve killed them. Suffering does not end suffering.

As for the ends of the war - the war was fought to make money for Halliburton by means of reconstruction contracts and to further neoconservative ideology, which dictates that we should establish “hegemony” over the entire world by keeping a dominant military presence on every continent and going to war with all countries that don’t toe our line.

29

Originally posted by Curtis
The end was American dominance over the Middle-East, and American global dominance in general, in the belief that American dominance will create a less suffering Middle East and a less suffering world.
American dominance > Malevolent Dictator Dominance.

American global dominance = Reality for quite a long while before the Iraq incident.

Less suffering under American dominance > More suffering.

I’d say the ends are justified.

SK: The war WAS defensive. As a global community we have to fight against “evil” (For lack of a better word. I really don’t agree with using it here, so don’t get on my ass about it.) for the people who can’t. You’re looking at the war in terms of country vs. country when I really don’t think that’s what it was about.

30

Originally posted by Tomiko
American dominance > Malevolent Dictator Dominance.
American global dominance = Reality for quite a long while before the Iraq incident.
Oh, please. American dominance has often been the friend and sometimes the direct cause of malevolent dictator dominance. Even now we’ve allied ourselves with the dictator of Uzbekistan, who is just as brutal as Hussein, and uses medieval torture devices on political prisoners. Yet, he’s our friend because we need him and his like to encircle and threaten Russia, who is far less malevolent. As long as he does what we tell him to, we’re not going to give a shit whom he boils in oil or decapitates. Saddam Hussein also was largely our own creation - those chemical weapons that he “used on his own people” were all sold to him by us. In fact, back in the eighties we deliberately took him off our official list of terrorism-sponsoring nations for a time so we could send him money. Likewise, Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have gotten as far if the CIA hadn’t trained and equipped his homies back when he was fighting the USSR.

Originally posted by Tomiko
The war WAS defensive.
You’re redefining the word to mean what you want it to mean. Iraq was committing no aggression against anyone, and we’ve done more to harm the Iraqis with our two wars, our decade of sanctions with its 40,000 bombing runs, and now all the aspects of our occupation that I listed above, than had Hussein (who was our creation in the first place).

Originally posted by Tomiko
As a global community we have to fight against “evil” (For lack of a better word. I really don’t agree with using it here, so don’t get on my ass about it.) for the people who can’t. You’re looking at the war in terms of country vs. country when I really don’t think that’s what it was about.
That’s exactly what it was about, because it was all about establishing <i>American</i> dominance, in complete defiance of the entire “global community.” That’s why we’re allying ourselves with murderous dictators now and shunning European countries.

31

“American dominance > Malevolent Dictator Dominance.”

As long as Bush doesn’t start rotating the troops out and leaving the Iraqis to their fate in time for the election. If we really care about the Iraqi people we should open reconstruction contracts to all nations and send more troops.

“American global dominance = etc…”

Not to the extent that the people in government are debating nowadays. By gaining ‘geopolitical dominance over the Mideast by invading Iraq’, what they have in mind is toppling all Mideast governments, replacing them with democratic governments that are friendly to us, creating consumer markets in Mideast countries that buy American goods, and culturally brainwashing the people of the Mideast with American culture so that they realize we’re really a great people and a great place and don’t want to kill us anymore. Somehow, the invasion of Iraq was the supposed to be the first step of this process.

32

Originally posted by Tomiko
Yay here’s more cannon-fodder for you to refute:
I think you’re missing the point. I was trying to say I find it irritating that a lot of you go “OH NOHZ DETH ND DEEKAYYY ITZ WRONG ;_;” at the mention of Bush, without realizing that some men are simply better off DEAD. Ok, so he couldn’t have done shit to the US, but it’s evident what he’s been doing to his own country, and it’s not cool. (And I’m sure you realize it’s a lot worse than “OGM WOMEN HAF 2 WERE MASKS”)

Mmm, no, I’m not missing the point. Want bad conditions? Look a little south of Iraq. Place called Saudi Arabia. One of our close allies remember? Oh, let me just add that they’re much higher on the list of human rights violating countries than Iraq was when that was published sometime last year. (The exact date escapes me). But wait! We don’t declare war on Saudi Arabia even though they were, have, and still will be doing the EXACT same stuff Iraq has been! I love hypocrisy. Hell, Bush was kind enough to fly the Saudi nationals out of the US right after 9-11 and stopped the FBI and co from doing any investigating on them. I see some biases, do toy?

We’re not burning Iraqis at the stake.

No, but we have been shooting at refugees as they try to escape from the shit storm we’ve turned Baghdad into. We have been responsible for more and more innocent deaths on both sides. We have been responsible for the complete lack of order and irreplacable culture that has been lost in Iraq. The blood of both the Iraqi citizens and ministers that have tried and are floundering in starting this democracy are on our hands.

And I could really care less who died, because I really do believe that the ends justify the means, and even if we killed thousands or tens of thousands, that’s nothing compared to what would’ve echoed from Saddam’s reign in the future.

What would have echoed from his reign? History has shown that democracy DOES tend to follow dictators. His death would have most likely collapsed the Ba’ath party.

And it’s also so much more than just saving lives. It was an attempt to end the suffering of many MILLIONS. You know what a million is, right? It’s a thousand thousands. That’s a lot of suffering. And even though a lot still are, a few lonely mothers/wives can’t compare to millions of people who’re deprived of the basic rights that everyone else in the world takes for granted.

Things aren’t getting any better. Now they also have to worry about being caught in the crossfire or being close to a bomb set off by anti-US forces. The occupation is destroying the country.

I have to go meet a friend for dinner, I’ll finish the rest of this when I get back.

33

The world was defensive in the context that American leadership seems to have decided that the best way to defend America is to take over the rest of the world. You know, if you know any Roman history, the Roman Empire was formed through a series of ‘defensive wars’. Seriously - the Romans always thought they were in danger of being attacked and ransacked by some foreign power whether it be Carthage or Gaul or the remnants of Greek Empires in the East or barbarians in Northern Europe and so on and on, so they kept taking over all these other tribes and civilizations in the name of ‘defense’, until before they knew it the Roman Republic was crumbling before their eyes. Personally, I think the same damn thing is going to happen to America and its going to be inevitable.

34

Originally posted by Curtis
Seriously - the Romans always thought they were in danger of being attacked and ransacked by some foreign power whether it be Carthage or Gaul or the remnants of Greek Empires in the East or barbarians in Northern Europe and so on and on, so they kept taking over all these other tribes and civilizations in the name of ‘defense’, until before they knew it the Roman Republic was crumbling before their eyes.
That doesn’t make those wars defensive. Hitler, too, said that invading Poland was “defensive,” thus beginning the aggression that soon turned into World War II. That war, of course, automatically created more need for such “defence,” and so on. These wars, as the ending of the above statement itself implies, destabilized and threatened the countries that started them far more than anything else.

35

Right, which is why I think what I said about the leadership believing that ‘the best way to protect America is to take over the world’, which is the same conclusion Rome came to back in the day, sums it up. Also note that I had ‘defensive’ in parentheses or quotation marks.

36

American dominance > Malevolent Dictator Dominance.

Actually, Iraq currently is a military dictator ship. US led. They’re trying to turn it into a democracy by getting local officals (who rapidly get assassinated after taking their position, mind you) to participate. Any real sort of semblence of order, if you can even call it that, ends outside of Baghdad. Just like Afghanistan- the law ends at Kabul’s city limits.

American global dominance = Reality for quite a long while before the Iraq incident.

No. You’re wrong there. There’s a difference between being a superpower and having global dominance. Global dominance is what our friendly neighborhood neo-conservatives want. A dominant US led military force on every continent. Yeah, US troops in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Sweden, you name it- they want it. Do you want that?

Less suffering under American dominance > More suffering.

If there’s less suffering, why are there more people protesting the continued US occupation than there were celebrating liberation- even long after Saddam was toppled?

SK: The war WAS defensive. As a global community we have to fight against “evil” (For lack of a better word. I really don’t agree with using it here, so don’t get on my ass about it.) for the people who can’t. You’re looking at the war in terms of country vs. country when I really don’t think that’s what it was about.

No, the war was a strike on a crippled country with no economy or means to be a threat to anyone. We provided them with their former weapons which are gone (quite obvious since NOTHING has been found). What is being done is Imperialism.

Oh, Curtis, you hit the nail on the head beautifully with the Roman Empire example.

37

No, the war was a strike on a crippled country with no economy or means to be a threat to anyone.
Wait, we’re still talking about Iraq, right? Just making sure, because usually you don’t say things so blatantly WRONG. I’m sorry but, not a threat? Maybe not to surrounding nations, but I’d call murdering thousands of it’s own people and forcing them to live in poverty a pretty big “threat.” I’ve been hearing negative things about the conditions there even long before American propoganda started trying to glorify America as a middle-eastern messiah.

If there’s less suffering, why are there more people protesting the continued US occupation than there were celebrating liberation- even long after Saddam was toppled?
On what grounds do you assume there are?

No. You’re wrong there. There’s a difference between being a superpower and having global dominance. Global dominance is what our friendly neighborhood neo-conservatives want. A dominant US led military force on every continent. Yeah, US troops in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Sweden, you name it- they want it. Do you want that?
No, and Good Point. But Canada also has troops the world over, and I wouldn’t call them a global dominator.

Actually, Iraq currently is a military dictator ship. US led. They’re trying to turn it into a democracy by getting local officals (who rapidly get assassinated after taking their position, mind you) to participate. Any real sort of semblence of order, if you can even call it that, ends outside of Baghdad. Just like Afghanistan- the law ends at Kabul’s city limits.
So now we’re contradicting ourselves? I’d hardly call lording over 2 middle eastern cities global dominance. I guess our definitions conflict.

38

Originally posted by Tomiko
I’d call murdering thousands of it’s own people
Yeah, only we have the right to do that. Oh, wait, I forgot - when we kill people, it doesn’t matter, because by definition it’s for their own good.

You keep trying to paint this wrong picture of Saddam Hussein being diametrically opposed to “good” or America or the Western world or whatever, but in reality, people like him are fully compatible with Western aims. That’s why we sold him those chemical weapons that he used to “kill thousands of his own people,” that’s why we still support dictators like Islam Karimov, and that’s why our man to head Iraq now is a convicted thief with a 25-year jail sentence hanging over his head. If those aims had anything to do with “ending suffering,” Hussein would never have been able to maintain power in the first place. For the same people that you’re claiming to want to save, “American dominance” and what you call “malevolent dictator dominance” have been the exact same thing in recent history. It was dressed up in pretty words every time; there is nothing different at all about this recent adventure. It would be a lot better if we and everyone else had just stayed the fuck out of Iraq from the beginning.

Originally posted by Tomiko
But Canada also has troops the world over, and I wouldn’t call them a global dominator.
Huh? For that matter, Thailand has troops in Iraq too. Why doesn’t that make Thailand a global dominator? It’s because the amount of troops they have there is infinitesimal, and because those few troops were paid for with American money. The global dominator is the country that sends out the most troops and pays for the others, not just any country that has troops somewhere.

Originally posted by Tomiko
So now we’re contradicting ourselves? I’d hardly call lording over 2 middle eastern cities global dominance.
Uh, global dominance was described as the aim of neoconservatives, not as what they’ve already achieved. Other aims that haven’t been achieved yet include starting wars with Syria and North Korea, for instance. There’s no contradiction there whatsoever. The reason the aim of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan hasn’t been achieved is twofold. First, it happened because those same people who were planning the war since day one had no plan whatsoever for actually keeping order and rebuilding those countries after destroying. Second, it happened because contrary to what all of those people said, the Iraqis never wanted us to invade their country and kill them, and never gave us the authority to impose “freedom” on them. That’s what this keeps returning to - you’re presuming that you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, and then claim that you’re doing those people a favour, despite knowing nothing whatsoever about them, not being entitled to make that sort of decision, and refusing to take any accountability for it.

39

Let us not forget that Iraq had a whole lot of sanctions set upon it. Most of them harmed the regime very little and the population very much. I don’t think Saddam Hussein worried very much about not being allowed to import pencils, I do think it harmed the schools quite a bit though. And there are quite a few other countries that if not force people to live in poverty, ignores that they have a whole lot of people who live in poverty.

I think the USA would earn on being selfish and dealing with its own poverty before it brings more poverty upon itself through liberations that aren’t liberations at all.

40

No, SK, if I claimed to have the right to decide who deserves to live and die I’d be claiming to have a room filled with 6 billion self-destruct buttons.

I’m only commenting on the general effects and weighing the cost who lives and dies vs who else lives and dies. Nowhere did I say “By gum I sure wish those Iraqi fucks would wither.”

When you have a choice between
a) Killing 10 000 people, and
b) Not, and letting tens of thousands on top of that die and suffer and millions more live in poverty,
well, I don’t know about you, but for me that’d not be a tough choice.

And I also don’t think I agreed with America occupying Iraq, only with getting rid of Saddam. If I did in some subtle way, I’m saying now that I don’t, so stop presuming I do.