Conflict in the Middle East

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Human Rights do, but the [I]granting and admission[/I] of said rights depends on those in power. In the case of Islam, there are no concessions made because the religion [I]is[/I] the government, and there is no separation. When one is justified by one's beliefs, and one holds the power, one is not likely to listen to reason if said reason will not benefit the one.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Yeah, and that is a major problem. But that doesn't also give license to us to take the most extreme solution to solve the conflict. We have to work for change in whatever way we can, instead of just saying, "Well, they'll never change, so to protect ourselves, let's go after them and kill them all (or if not all, then most)."

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]That's funny, since 'your way' was derived from the East itself (who do you think invented the zero?). Your way takes things from every other part of the world - so it's not 'your way' at all, it's a combination of everything there is. Developed. Why don't you let them develop [i]their[/i] own way? The West also had a brutal and horrible history as well until it became... hmm... Westernised.[/size][/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. What matters is what the cultures are now, not what they were.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Irrelevant. What matters is what the cultures are now, not what they were.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear the phrase, "If we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it"?

Having a historical understanding of cultures is very important. It may only help us a little sometimes, but it is important not to dismiss history entirely.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Yes, I have. That is how our culture got to where it is: our history. We look back, and see all of the things that the nation did in disgust, and learn from this. It gives us all the more reason to criticize it, because of the fact that the U.S., as a nation, has been there.

However, where an idea came from doesn't change the validity of the idea.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Allamorph;823410][FONT=Arial]Seems like the key words in mine were "no matter the station" and "the Middle East and throughout Europe". I know all too well the dangers of overgeneralising and profiling people, and I assure you that I am very careful when I do. (Also remember there is a difference in [I]what[/I] you believe and how you display it. If our previous discussions have not been enough to prove that point to you....)[/FONT][/QUOTE]You're still attempting to profile every single one of the members of that religion (even if you're only referring to certain countries). Careful or not, that's a lot of people to label in that fashion. The Middle East and throughout Europe is pretty damn broad for applying such a harsh judgment.[QUOTE=Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]You seem to be under the impression, then, that a Muslim who converts to Christianity (or Buddhism, for that matter) must not have been a very good Muslim to begin with, in the sense that their beliefs must not have been as strong as others of their faith. That is a false impression; consider the testimony of Paul (formerly Saul) who was originally a devout Christian-hunter (in effect) and one of the best, who hated Christians and sought to kill them wherever he encountered them?and changed his life in the span of less than one minute, contributing to a large portion of the New Testament with his letters to fledgling churches.

Saul was an extremist. He 'converted' to Christianity. Thus, the phrase "no one" is defunct. (Unless you want to toss the "it would help if I believed..." card again. :animesmil )

Incidentally, Islamic law forbids renouncing the Muslim faith. Wait, no, that's not true; Islamic law says that renouncing is not possible. It also says that any who [I]do[/I] recant are to be killed.[/FONT][/QUOTE]I said no such thing or assumed they weren't a 'good Muslim' to begin with. The point I was making is that [I]if[/I] such extreme thinking or belief in killing others existed on the level you are saying it does... that right there implies that someone who actually thinks that way would [I]never switch to begin with[/I]. You are skirting what I said to back up your erroneous belief that all of them are like that.

And joking about the 'I believe' card which was a misunderstood joke doesn't change what you're doing here, implying (profiling incorrectly) that every single one of them would kill. That's utter BS and you know it.

[SIZE="1"][B]Note:[/B] By all of them I'm referring to the areas you referred to which in this case is [I]only[/I] the [B]ENTIRE[/B] [I] Middle East and European countries[/I]. [/sarcasm][/SIZE]

[Esther]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]This is ridiculous -- to say there is no "extreme" or "moderate" schools of thought within Islam is to dismiss the majority of the American Muslim population.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]This is very much true.

1 in 4 young Muslim Americans find homicide bombings against innocent civillians "okay". How long will it be until the suicide bombings start taking place here in the United States?

I was reading Ann Coulter's book in which she discusses an interview at a Muslim high school in Brooklyn, New York where more than half of the students being interviewed called the 9/11 hijackers "martyrs".

Call me an Islamophobe but I find this trend amongst the young Muslim American community extremely scary and alarming. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']Additionally, Islam is just as "inherently violent" as Christianity or Judaism. Read Leviticus, look at Christian justification for conquest and destruction, and you'll see that perhaps your critique of the violence of Islam is a bit hypocritical.[/font][/quote]Just to jump in a little here, but perhaps you should re-read Allamorph's posts. There has been no claims to Christianity being 'passive'. In fact he hasn't said anything about his faith at all. So where is this hypocrisy you speak of?[/FONT]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][quote name='Allamorph;823410][FONT=Arial][COLOR="DarkRed"]Aaryanna[/COLOR]: The only reason I make this stance is because I can say with full confidence that there is no such thing as "extreme" Islam. "Extreme" is a word tossed on by the media to make headlines draw people to read; it does not in actuality exist, just as "pacifist" Islam does not exist. Granted, not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But that does not mean that those who are not would not kill if given the chance.[/FONT][/QUOTE]Full confidence? o_O You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't and won't label people as potential killers if given the chance. [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial']I think the difficulty in recognizing that type of pervasive animosity comes from living in a nation where there is simply no reason to fight each other. That region of the world has been in constant conflict since the Hebrews first conquered Caanan . . . by marching around a city for a week and blowing trumpets.[/FONT][/quote]This I can agree with, however, a look at those of this faith who live in the US only proves that when given a chance to live in an area where there is no reason to fight... there is no fighting or killing.

I would argue/point out that this proves that being in constant wars/conflicts brings out that extreme attitude/side of Islam you just claimed didn't exist. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]Just to jump in a little here, but perhaps you should re-read Allamorph's posts. There has been no claims to Christianity being 'passive'. In fact he hasn't said anything about his faith at all. So where is this hypocrisy you speak of?[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]There have been no [i]explicit[/i] claims to Christianity being nonviolent, but there is certainly the insinuation. Why would he bring up the "tendency" of Islam to be "violent," unless it was a tacit value judgment? He must assume that Christianity is more peaceful if his assertion of Islam's violence can hold any water -- for if he believed Christianity to be just as violent, why would he bring up the point? That'd be even more ridiculous.

To be frank, I'm disturbed by the Islamophobia and sweeping generalizations going on in this thread. You've been fed political scaremongering, and in some cases, outright lies. The fact that you read Coulter's book, Esther, is troubling insofar as you would take her seriously.[/font]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]There have been no [i]explicit[/i] claims to Christianity being nonviolent, but there is certainly the insinuation. Why would he bring up the "tendency" of Islam to be "violent," unless it was a tacit value judgment? He must assume that Christianity is more peaceful if his assertion of Islam's violence can hold any water -- for if he believed Christianity to be just as violent, why would he bring up the point? That'd be even more ridiculous.[/font][/QUOTE]Why would you assume that thinking Islam is violent somehow = the other side thinking Christianity is peaceful? You could say I'm curious to know why you would assume someone is hypocritical instead of seeking clarification as to where they actually stand. As distasteful as the statement [quote']Granted, not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But that does not mean that those who are not would not kill if given the chance.[/quote] is, that still doesn't excuse generalizations on our side either.

And since I'm here, to counter what you've been saying about Muslim's Allamorph, just as you know people who have encountered the sentiment of killing those who stray, I have friends currently serving in Iraq who can say otherwise. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what you've said, it sounds like you're applying the principle of random sampling to what your friends encountered in order to form an opinion on how these people behave under given circumstances.

By not running into anyone who thought differently, you seem to be saying that information can be used to indicate that they all think like that. That is useful, however, statistics do have a margin of error to consider. Mind you, this is only if I'm understanding what you are doing correctly. If I am not, then I'd appreciate some clarification.

But if you are, then the 'random' sample effect for forming an opinion, based on actual interaction with people of that faith is, according to my friends, incorrect. [/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Retribution][FONT="Arial"']Additionally, Islam is just as "inherently violent" as Christianity or Judaism. Read Leviticus, look at Christian justification for conquest and destruction, and you'll see that perhaps your critique of the violence of Islam is a bit hypocritical.[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Thank you, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Nathan[/COLOR]. You made my point before I could.

And thank [I]you[/I], [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retri[/COLOR], for helping me prove my point about religious justification. However, I'll also suggest you go back and reread my posts, for I am well aware of the violent past of both Christianity and Judaism. As I was telling someone last night, the Hebrews were ordered by God not only to invade and conquer Caanan, but to eliminate entirely every inhabitant thereof. (They disobeyed, of course. Mercy is a very hard quality to toss aside.) Around the time of Kings Saul and David, there was a massive conflict with the Philistines (a war I haven't looked into as of yet, so I can't say who started it or what it was even over). Then of course there were the ever-popular discussion-fodder, The Crusades?which most people either forget or do not know were a direct response to an Islamic [I]jihad[/I], and that both were efforts to seize and then re-seize locations sacred to both religions. And of course there were the Inquisitions (the most infamous being the Spanish?which incidentally was secular-initiated, being condemned several times by that era's pope), and we're all aware of the atrocities that occurred during that time. (Ironically, the Inquisitions contributed quite a bit to modern BDSM practices. Hooray, Catholicism. :p )

I am even more disturbed by the rampant Jesus-ophobism, to be honest. I believe [I]your[/I] reaction, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR], is mostly because you know I am a Christian already, and therefore assume I am deliberately painting a vulgar picture of Islam to promote my own religion. My goal is nothing of the sort; in fact, I rarely spread my faith around because I see no sense in running my mouth to people who don't want to hear my made-up stories.

My goal is solely to bring an understanding of Islam to the playing field, and remind people that [I]American diverse[/I] thinking will be ineffective in dealing with such a culturally [I]unified[/I] thinking as this. That unity is their strength, and a very admirable trait, which the Christian community has not been able to maintain since the Protestant separation.

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Full confidence? o_O You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't and won't label people as potential killers if given the chance.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Full confidence. And that's fine if you disagree. If the concept works you into a tizzy, mayhap we should move on to another topic.

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]This I can agree with, however, a look at those of this faith who live in the US only proves that when given a chance to live in an area where there is no reason to fight... there is no fighting or killing.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Oh, I'm aware of that. We've got a relatively peaceful place over here, just as there is no fighting or killing in Britain or Europe. But again, I was not speaking to the [I]overt action[/I], but the thought process. First, you never start a fight you cannot win, yes? Second, given America's racist past (the Yellow scare, anyone?), showing overt antagonism to a country your home happens to be at war with is not typically a good idea.

It's common sense. :p

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I would argue/point out that this proves that being in constant wars/conflicts brings out that extreme attitude/side of Islam you just claimed didn't exist. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
And I would argue back that you have reversed the situations, and it is the [I]attitude[/I] that causes the wars. People who value peace don't fight amongst themselves constantly.

And remember, I'm not saying "there's no extremism in Islam" to mean "violent people do not exist in Islam"?though, again, even the student who stabbed the table demanding his fellow's death remarked a few minutes later that there is no violence in Islam, and refused to abandon his position even when my friend confronted him about the behavior he had just exhibited. (Paradox, much?) My point is that there are no "extremist factions" of Islam, apart from what the media manufactures to make headlines. Passive and aggressive alike, they are [I]all Islam[/I].

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']You're still attempting to profile every single one of the members of that religion (even if you're only referring to certain countries). Careful or not, that's a lot of people to label in that fashion. The Middle East and throughout Europe is pretty damn broad for applying such a harsh judgment.[/quote]
I know.

[QUOTE][I]I said no such thing or assumed they weren't a 'good Muslim' to begin with. The point I was making is that if such extreme thinking or belief in killing others existed on the level you are saying it does... that right there implies that someone who actually thinks that way would [U]never switch to begin with[/U].[/I][/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. First, though, you [I]did[/I] assume that said person was a 'good Muslim'. If a person has the kind of devout thinking we both assumed to prove our points, then that makes them a 'good Muslim'. But you're right; this is belaboring the issue.

What I was attempting to tell you was that deep, devout convictions [I]do not[/I] guarantee that a switch will never occur. Study some human behavior, and you'll find instances of such switches all over the place . . . and not just in the religious sector.

Unfortunately, all the examples that I might have pulled for you have just fled my mind. You want me to give you some, I'll do some looking around for them on Tuesday when I get back to campus. Gonna be busy these next few days.

[quote name='Nathan][FONT=Arial']But if you are, then the 'random' sample effect for forming an opinion, based on actual interaction with people of that faith is, according to my friends, incorrect.[/FONT][/quote]
I assure you that I am well aware of the limits of statistical analysis. What speaks to me more, though, is that if the 'extremist' thinking were truly extremist, and not echoed by every member of that religion (inwardly or otherwise), then given both the massive area covered by my contacts (multiple travel instances for my aged friend) [I]and[/I] the large number of people with which they came in casual contact with on a daily basis, my knowledge of statistics tells me that there should at least on [I]one[/I] of the trips been at least [I]one[/I] exception. Just one person, and all my previous posts are nullified. But there was none.

And then you have to apply human behavior in the context of geographical and social environments and various other quirks I'm sure [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] would be better suited to point out for you. After that, I personally have a difficult time both imagining how someone could hold the line of reasoning I have set forth already, and an even greater difficulty accepting that a person would [I]want[/I] to maintain such a mindset. It makes no sense to me, and I would gladly have it otherwise.

But, bearing all the aforementioned in mind, what I have understood [I]compels[/I] me to, as [COLOR=DarkRed]Rach[/COLOR] put it, pass judgment.

(Incidentally, I am getting a strong conciliatory vibe from your devil's advocate approach. There is nothing tangible to support the feeling, but it puts me off slightly. [I]*shrug*[/I] What can ya do.)[/FONT]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial](Incidentally, I am getting a strong conciliatory vibe from your devil's advocate approach. There is nothing tangible to support the feeling, but it puts me off slightly. [I]*shrug*[/I'] What can ya do.)[/FONT][/quote]I'm not entirely sure if you are talking to me or not, but if you are, I prefer to understand (to the best of my ability) where someone is coming from[I] before[/I] I pass judgment as it were. Perhaps my response to Retribution could be seen as an attempt to head off potential hostility, but my interest in understanding where you come from is genuine.

However, perhaps I did you the disservice of thinking the claim of hypocrisy tossed your way could possibly push you away from the conversation as a whole. In which case I apologize for my assumption. I don't know you well enough to say one way or the other.

I can say this, it is not a devil's advocate approach (at least not an intentional one) I prefer to know more about someone before I open my mouth and stick my foot into it. And if you were not talking to me, disregard this post. :whoops:[/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph']I am even more disturbed by the rampant Jesus-ophobism, to be honest. I believe [I]your[/I] reaction, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR], is mostly because you know I am a Christian already, and therefore assume I am deliberately painting a vulgar picture of Islam to promote my own religion. My goal is nothing of the sort; in fact, I rarely spread my faith around because I see no sense in running my mouth to people who don't want to hear my made-up stories.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]If you are calling me "Jesus-ophobic," I would object. I'm more taking issue with the broadly negative picture being painted of Islam here. I personally find these views to be intellectually dishonest.

I assumed you were painting Islam as a violent religion (and generally speaking there's a lot of that language in your former posts, intended or not). So I wanted to knock that argument down by bringing up [i]your[/i] religion. You know, it's the argument of "pick the plank out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your brother's."

[QUOTE]My goal is solely to bring an understanding of Islam to the playing field, and remind people that [I]American diverse[/I] thinking will be ineffective in dealing with such a culturally [I]unified[/I] thinking as this. That unity is their strength, and a very admirable trait, which the Christian community has not been able to maintain since the Protestant separation.[/QUOTE]
I'm not really sure what you mean in creating a unified/diverse dichotomy of thinking. I'm not even sure that it's valid to call Islam "culturally unified" insofar as there are different sects with wildly varying doctrines. These divisions are in large part responsible for the current civil unrest in Iraq. If anything, I'd call Christianity more unified.

I don't see how unity of thought is positive, though. If anything, "American diversity" should be considered amazingly positive -- both in ends and ethos.

In any event, I think we should also bring a distinction between the truth of the religion (i.e. the actual teachings and honest interpretations) and what the religion is purported to be by its mouthpieces. For instance, Christianity has been used to justify war by politicians, but an examination of Jesus' teachings would leave anyone understanding that he was a pacifist. Likewise, we should study Islam as it is, and not assume it is a violent religion because of its followers actions.[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]What I was attempting to tell you was that deep, devout convictions [I]do not[/I] guarantee that a switch will never occur. Study some human behavior, and you'll find instances of such switches all over the place . . . and not just in the religious sector.

Unfortunately, all the examples that I might have pulled for you have just fled my mind. You want me to give you some, I'll do some looking around for them on Tuesday when I get back to campus. Gonna be busy these next few days.[/FONT][/QUOTE]This I already know. You can hunt up examples if you wish, but I don't think it's necessary. That's a point you don't need to prove. [quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]In any event, I think we should also bring a distinction between the truth of the religion (i.e. the actual teachings and honest interpretations) and what the religion is purported to be by its mouthpieces. For instance, Christianity has been used to justify war by politicians, but an examination of Jesus' teachings would leave anyone understanding that he was a pacifist. Likewise, we should study Islam as it is, and not assume it is a violent religion because of its followers actions.[/font][/QUOTE]As much as I disagree (in principle) with what Allamorph was saying, what we think what their religion is[I] supposed [/I]to mean, is irrelevant. As it says in this article here: [URL="http://www.amightywind.com/islam/muslimconverts.htm"][U]Daring Leaps of Faith[/U][/URL] even if we might think the interpretation of never leaving the religion is wrong, it doesn't change the fact that many of them see it that way.

It's all fine and dandy to study it as we might think it's meant to be, but that ignores how it's actually being carried out right here and now. I think people (myself included) are completely misunderstanding what he's trying to say. In a sense, we should be familiar with this kind of pig headed stubbornness when it comes to religious tolerance or lack of. It is one of the reasons this country was formed in the first place.

We've had a state of separation between church and government for quite some time so it's only natural that we'd have a hard time seeing things that way. Or that we'd get offended or point out that others are being overly harsh when they outright say it.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]As much as I find the idea of any war distasteful, I have to reluctantly admit that if the other side sees things differently and is unwilling or incapable of coming to the table with a solution for peace (that does not include genocide of another nation) then I accept that on some level, the wars are necessary. As Raiha pointed out here: [quote name='Raiha][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Because these countries do not allow free speech, a war of ideas can not be fought on any level. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]It's a little hard to find a working solution when one side has already decided on no compromise. I'd love to add more to this, but truthfully I don't know enough about it to do so. o_O From the discussion I've read so far, it's quite clear that I need to know more about the history of that region, the religion, etc, etc, and so on. [/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I've only just joined in on this thread, but I did have a couple of points to make.

As far as religion goes, I do think it's unreasonable to suggest that Islam is a violent religion in general. There are some tenents of Islam that attempt to justify violent actions against others, but then again, this is often down to interpretation.

For example, groups like the KKK in America often refer to the Bible as a way of justifying their racist attitude. And there are many groups that refer to the Bible to justify biggotry against gay people.

The point is that if you have already decided that you want to follow a course of action (violence, biggotry, racism, a political agenda, etc), then you will tend to look for those Biblical or religious terms that suit your point of view - not the other way around.

I doubt that a peaceful person reads the Qaran and suddenly decides to become a jihadist, lol. It obviously doesn't work that way.

Instead, people are indoctrinated with extremist points of view at a young age. Religious texts are used as a basis to justify these points of view, but this is just a way of legitimizing violent and unacceptable behavior.

So the same argument can be made about any religion - historically, religion is often used as a basis for violence. It's just that right now we tend to hear about Islamist violence because it's particularly relevant at this point in history.

As far as war goes... all I can say is that there has [i]always[/i] been a strong anti-war movement. Especially among student bodies.

The problem is that war is not only sometimes necessary, but unavoidable. In the case of Iraq, I think the only real question was "when" rather than "if".

I've posted about the situation in Iraq in another thread I think, in some detail...but the thing that bugs me the most about this war is that it's often misunderstood or oversimplified. The background of Iraq is often unknown as is the U.N. framework that led to the war in the first place.

I remember seeing a lot of anti-war projects when I was at University and most of them carried the theme "No War for Oil". When I actually wrote an essay about this an investigated it, I realized how horribly simplistic and wrong that statement actually is. But it's like a brand - it's fashionable. And it's easy to swallow without the need to actually do any work.

In one of our media analysis classes I remember most students saying they never watched TV news or read opinion pieces. So the most politically active students were regularly those who were most ignorant about the realities and complexities of the situation.

I find it ironic that people can classify themselves as "anti-war", as if those who support military action are "pro-war". I gurantee, very few people are actually "pro-war".

I personally supported the military action against Iraq, but I'm certainly not in favor of war as a general idea. I absolutely abhor violence and the thought of sending troops into battle (were I a political leader) turns my stomach.

I doubt any political leader makes these decisions without serious personal conflicts occurring. But in the end, the bottom line really has to be weighed up.

So even the pro/anti-war dichotomy bothers me at times. It's yet another way of oversimplifying subject that isn't so simple.[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James']I find it ironic that people can classify themselves as "anti-war", as if those who support military action are "pro-war". I gurantee, very few people are actually "pro-war".[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Well, I would say that at least in the US, there are certainly pro-war people. The general conception is that whomever we cross swords with will surely lose, so "bring 'em on." This is not to say that everyone here wants war all the time, but our population definitely gets bloodthirsty. Most were decidedly pro-war for Afghanistan, and most were decidedly pro-war for Iraq as well.

[QUOTE]I personally supported the military action against Iraq, but I'm certainly not in favor of war as a general idea.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. As for the support for the invasion of Iraq -- why? Are you still in support of the invasion?[/font]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Retri, I still don't think that any of those people actually like the idea of war. There are people who are "pro-war" and who's son or daughter has died - those people aren't happy about that. They understand the need for military engagement at times, but I don't think that they actually "like" the act of war. That's really what I was getting at.

As for my support of the invasion...there is just so much ground to cover. I will try to summarise.

First of all, I supported the invasion on a legal basis.

The first Gulf War in the early 90's was a U.N.-sanctioned action, as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The U.N. force that attacked Iraq pushed its forced all the way from Kuwait up to the surrounds of Baghdad.

It is my view that at this point, Saddam Hussein should have been deposed. Unfortunately he wasn't, largely because there was no U.N. mandate to do so.

But the war did not stop because the allies had "won". It stopped because of a ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq and the U.N. forces. That was when the north and south no-fly zones were set up.

So the original war did not actually ever end - it was simply suspended. The ceasefire treaty that was signed pointed out that if Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire, the U.N. forces would have the authority to re-enter the country.

Well, Iraq [i]did[/i] violate the ceasefire on numerous occasions. While never successful in bringing one down, the Iraqi military routinely fired upon U.N. aircraft that patrolled the north and south no-fly zones. So it blatantly broke the terms of its own agreement.

On this basis the U.N. allied forces were rightfully able to re-enter the country.

Furthermore, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (of April 1991) required that Iraq destroy - under international supervision - "all chemical and biological weapons and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto".

The resolution also required the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of ballistic missiles with a range of 150kms or more.

At this point let's not forget that in addition to attacking Kuwait, Iraq also attempted to invade Iran previously. So it had already attacked two neighbouring countries without basis to do so.

Over the following decade, Iraq did everything it could to confuse or subvert U.N. attempts to verify the destruction of Iraq's known stockpiles. And in 1998, Iraq summarily dismissed UNSCOM from the country, saying that it would no longer assist the United Nations - even with passive monitoring.

Then Resolution 1441 was passed, which said "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations Inspectors and the IAEA and to complete actions required under Resolution 687".

That resolution gave Iraq one final chance to comply.

The issue was never that Iraq still posessed WMDs as such - it was that Iraq had failed to declare what had happened to thousands of known stockpiles that had since "gone missing".

Resolution 1441 set up a body called UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission), which was designed to bring to an end the disarmament process.

This process said that if Iraq were to provide any false statements or omissions or failures to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution, this would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations.

This resolution also repeated the call for "serious consequences" should material breach be found.

A major cat-and-mouse game then proceeded between Iraq and UNMOVIC.

UNMOVIC's head, Dr. Hans Blix (who opposed the invasion), reported that Iraq was unable to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and about 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents including VX nerve gas. He also found strong indications that Iraq had produced more anthrax than it had previously declared and that some of this stockpile had been retained. Iraq had also failed to declare 650 kilograms of bacterial growth, which would be enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

In addition to this, UNMOVIC confirmed that Iraq had violated the terms of the resolution related to its ballistic missile program.

Specifically, it had reverse-engineered existing rockets so that they could travel well beyond the 150km limited range (Iraq did this by inserting additional engines into the same capsule, thereby hiding the true nature of the rockets' range).

So legally speaking, Iraq was well in violation of all applicable U.N. Resolutions.

In the end, no weapons of mass destruction were found. [i]However[/i], there are two points to make about this.

First and foremost, the political leaders who ordered the invasion in the first place were doing so based on the intelligence that was provided. And secondly, regardless of intelligence failures about what weapons might still exist in Iraq, the fundamental point is that Iraq [i]failed to declare[/i] how/when/where it destroyed or removed the undeclared stockpiles that were known to exist. So it wasn't about finding a cache of weapons - it was about Iraq's inability to account for dangerously large quantities of material.

The second reason I supported the invasion was on humanitarian grounds.

I don't need to go into the horrific detail about what Hussein's regime did to both the Iraqi people and those who lived outside the country.

But I will point out one fact: apart from the knowledge everybody had that Iraq had attacked other countries with no real basis (Kuwait and Iran), it's also true that Iraq visciously attacked its own people.

The most significant act was in 1988, when Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurdish population in the country's north. Some 5,000 people were killed and some 10,000 were injured as a result of that attack.

And - going back to UNMOVIC for a moment - while they did not locate large quantities of chemical weapons, that aspect only accounts for part of Iraq's obligations.

Another equally important part is that Iraq had to verifiably dismantle its [i]capability[/i] to manufacture these weapons in future. UNMOVIC found no evidence that this had been done.

The third reason I supported the invasion is because the Iraqi people themselves desired freedom.

In fact, after the first Gulf War, there were no less than two uprisings against the Iraqi regime. Both of these uprisings were brutally put down by the authorities.

America does take some blame in that, because there were indications that if the Iraqis rose up against Hussein, America would lend support to their efforts. But they did not and there are many Iraqis who died as a result. Also their end goal of freedom was not achieved.

Let's also remember that nobody imposed democracy on Iraq. The country had been a democracy previously. It was Saddam Hussein's abuse of this system that allowed him to remain in power (much like Hitler in Germany - remember that Hitler was elected to the Reichstag and he actually successfully changed the constitution to consolidate power and to establish an autocracy). Saddam Hussein's actions were similar.

There is one infamous scene where, just after being elected, Saddam Hussein is sitting in a fully-attended Parliament. He sits there with his cabinet and begins reading names off a list.

As each name is read, the relevant Member of Parliament gets up from their seat and exists the building. They are being shot as they go outside.

This horrific perversion of Iraq's democracy is what allowed Hussein to remain in power despite the objections of Iraqi citizens.

So there you go.

That's just a summary of why I supported the invasion. I believe it was the right thing to do, both for international security and for the Iraqi citizenry at large.

You then asked me....do I still support the invasion?

Yes I do. Iraq is starting to settle down and there's a slow but steady improvement in the nation's core institutions. As hard as the task has been, I think it is worthwhile - and will ultimately be remembered as such. I also think that if you are prepared to essentially put your own citizens in harm's way (i.e. your troops) in order to help people who can not help themselves...that's an honorable thing, despite the mistakes that were also made.

However, that's not to say that I agree with all aspects of the strategic planning. Many mistakes were made by the United States and most of these mistakes related to improper planning and confused management. Luckily for everyone, most of these mistakes are now ironing out.

I often hear people say "but it's their business, if they want to free themselves they don't need to drag others in!" But I view that as dismissive and, frankly, cruel. We live in a globalized world and our ability to help people who can't help themselves is a big measure of the kind of people we really are.

I could go in a [i]lot[/i] more detail (I made a point of writing an essay about Resolution 1441 in University), but I'll leave it there for now.

Hopefully you can see that, at least for me, it's not about pro or anti-war. It's about recognizing the complexities involved and being as realistic as possible.[/font]

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]Alright, valid points, but by your logic [i]the UN[/i] should have invaded. Iraq broke international law and was openly belligerent to UN forces. I fail to see why the US decided to [in large part] unilaterally invade.

While Iraq did perform illegal actions, I do not think the situation called for a hastily conceived invasion. There are situations that call for the mobilization of America, and there are situations that do not -- I believe the Iraq War to fall in the latter category.

If the US invaded every time there was a dictator killing a few thousand of his own citizens, we'd be all over the place. It's simply an unrealistic precedent to set, and therefore a poor criterion for invasion.

I'm also a bit more skeptical of our leader's nobility/selflessness in invading Iraq. You've probably seen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY][b]this video[/b][/url] of Cheney rattling off reasons why we shouldn't have invading Baghdad in the first war. I'm surprised to see a 180 degree change of heart.

Additionally, I think we lose sight of our original intentions in invading. The invasion was sold by media and the administration as a foray specifically to uncover [i]allegedly known[/i] weapons facilities (WMDs). It was only once we failed to uncover any that the administration changed pace and called it a war of liberation and democratization... and this seems to be the image most people have now of the conflict.

I suppose I don't think the US invasion of Iraq was worth the civilian life (approx. hundreds of thousands), nor the monetary cost of war, nor the international damage to our reputation.[/font]

[James]

[quote]Alright, valid points, but by your logic the UN should have invaded. Iraq broke international law and was openly belligerent to UN forces. I fail to see why the US decided to [in large part] unilaterally invade.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well it's never the "U.N." that invades - it's just a question of whether the forces are invading on behalf of the U.N. or not.

Initially it was agreed that if Resolution 1441 was violated, this would result in military action (in fact, France specifically agreed to this when meeting with the United States). Resolution 1441 was the [i]final[/i] opportunity for Iraq to make the appropriate declarations about its weapons programs.

When Iraq did violate 1441 with a material breach, both France and Russia (permanent members of the Security Council) stated that a new resolution specifically requiring force would be needed. This was blatantly opposed to their earlier assurances that 1441 would be the final resolution - besides, that was 1441's entire purpose in the first place. So an additional resolution was unnecessary.

Due to their veto powers in the Council, it would have been impossible to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force. That is why various countries went to war with Iraq outside the U.N. framework.

The intention to veto was purely political and was not based on the outline of past resolutions. France, for instance, was discovered to have been selling some weapons to Iraq right up until the 2003 invasion. It makes sense that they would want to veto any military strike under these circumstances.[/font]

[quote]If the US invaded every time there was a dictator killing a few thousand of his own citizens, we'd be all over the place. It's simply an unrealistic precedent to set, and therefore a poor criterion for invasion.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I suppose it depends how important the "killing of a few thousand citzens" is to you.

It's very important to me and obviously very important to the millions of people living in Iraq.

Moreover, that was not the sole purpose for the invasion. As stated above, there were legal compliance reasons, reasons related to humanitarian causes within the country [i]and[/i] there were genuine concerns about Iraq's potential to threaten its neighbors in future.

You must also understand the context of the invasion. It took place after the September 11 attacks, where authorities all over the world were forced to re-think the nature of global security.

Everybody already knew that Iraq was capable of acting on its own to attack other countries (as it had done numerous times in the past). And everybody knew it would do this without due cause.

The very legitimate fear is that Iraq may attempt to act through proxy groups (whether known terrorist groups or groups of its own creation). Those who are responsible for [i]your[/i] safety were not willing to take risks on that question. [/font]

[quote]I'm also a bit more skeptical of our leader's nobility/selflessness in invading Iraq. You've probably seen this video of Cheney rattling off reasons why we shouldn't have invading Baghdad in the first war. I'm surprised to see a 180 degree change of heart.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You're honestly surprised? Where were you when 9/11 happened?

I don't think you recognize the incredible importance of that event and how it changed strategic thinking all over the world.

It's important to mention that where some countries may not have supported progressing directly to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, many of those same countries saw the need for that post-9/11.

It isn't that our policies in the past were right. It's that they were horribly short-sighted. The U.N. in particular failed to recognize the terrible danger of allowing the Iraqi dictatorship to remain in power, despite a major war aimed at pushing it back from one of its neighbors.[/font]

[quote]Additionally, I think we lose sight of our original intentions in invading. The invasion was sold by media and the administration as a foray specifically to uncover allegedly known weapons facilities (WMDs). It was only once we failed to uncover any that the administration changed pace and called it a war of liberation and democratization... and this seems to be the image most people have now of the conflict.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, that's not quite accurate.

First of all, I don't think the war was ever really "sold" by the media. Many within the media were against the prospect of a war from day one.

But in addition, the WMD issue centered around [i]both[/i] the potential to uncover existing stockpiles [i]and[/i] the removal of Iraq's [b]capacity[/b] for further production. This can be hard for the media to communicate in a thirty second soundbyte!

As I mentioned earlier, Resolution 1441's main emphasis was related to ensuring that Iraq did not possess any development capability.

If we'd gone to Iraq and taken out any WMDs that we found and then left, I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy. But they'd have been highly short-sighted as well.

UNMOVIC knew that Iraq could easily destroy small stockpiles quickly and re-constitute development programs in a short period of time. So what if all of their WMDs had been destroyed? What matters is that they retained the capacity and systems to produce more.

The issue is a whole lot more complex than the media portrayed. And that is why so many people today fundamentally misunderstand the lead-up to the war.

As for liberation...I agree with you that the promotion of this really came later. I'm sure the United States saw this as a secondary cause and a side-benefit.

But that doesn't change the fact that some [i]50 million[/i] people who were essentially prisoners in their own country are now free.[/font]

[quote]I suppose I don't think the US invasion of Iraq was worth the civilian life (approx. hundreds of thousands), nor the monetary cost of war, nor the international damage to our reputation.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You know, this is why I don't think anybody is truly "pro-war". How do you put a price on human life? And how do you judge an action's worthiness in that context?

As I said earlier, I absolutely abhor war. It's a terrible thing and horrific things can happen during wartime.

But if I get asked "was it worth it?", my bottom line is very simple. 50 million people were freed. That's a mighty big number. And these are people who truly wanted to be free and needed help to achieve it.

Unfortunately losses always occur in war and they are [i]never[/i] "acceptable".

But my god, you'd really be jumping up and down if you lived through World War II, where millions died and where the all-too-late military actions of the Allies gave Hitler time to begin the Holocaust in earnest. In that case we may have been late and the casualties may have been high, but thank god we actually took action.

Sometimes those tough decisions are necessary for long-term aims. And I think that the results of these actions won't really be clear until another decade has passed. It may then be that future generations in Iraq view America in the same way that the French did after the close of WWII.[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James']Well it's never the "U.N." that invades - it's just a question of whether the forces are invading on behalf of the U.N. or not.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Isn't it a matter of acting in a multilateral fashion, with the blessing of the international community? The US did neither in 2003.

[QUOTE]I suppose it depends how important the "killing of a few thousand citzens" is to you.

It's very important to me and obviously very important to the millions of people living in Iraq.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. But 5,000 killed under Saddam is a drop in the bucket when compared to 500,000 killed in the invasion (conservative estimate -- many others range up to 1 million). The invasion caused vastly more loss of life than under Saddam.

[QUOTE]Moreover, that was not the sole purpose for the invasion. As stated above, there were legal compliance reasons, reasons related to humanitarian causes within the country [i]and[/i] there were genuine concerns about Iraq's potential to threaten its neighbors in future.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of the legal/compliance reasons, but the infraction of those did not call for the US jumping into such a massive hole, and largely alone. The amount of money spent on this war is ridiculous, to say the least.

[QUOTE]You're honestly surprised? Where were you when 9/11 happened?

I don't think you recognize the incredible importance of that event and how it changed strategic thinking all over the world.[/QUOTE]
How does 9/11 change the fundamental chain of events that would occur had we invaded Baghdad? 9/11 was the impetus, but it wouldn't have changed anything on the ground in Iraq.

[QUOTE]First of all, I don't think the war was ever really "sold" by the media. Many within the media were against the prospect of a war from day one.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps in Australia, but even papers such as the New York Times were beating the war drum. It was sickeningly irresponsible journalism coming form the Op-Ed pages, and that coverage profoundly shifted public opinion in support of invasion. Go search the archives for yourself -- Washington Post, LA Times, or NY Times, they all thought an invasion was justified.

Most of our Congress voted for invasion, as well. It was a bloodthirsty climate we were in, and because we failed to turn up bin Laden, the Americans wanted another scapegoat. Iraq became American's vent for the rage of 9/11. People saw it as punishing the "same people" (i.e. Arabs) for the attacks.

[QUOTE]But in addition, the WMD issue centered around [i]both[/i] the potential to uncover existing stockpiles [i]and[/i] the removal of Iraq's [b]capacity[/b] for further production. This can be hard for the media to communicate in a thirty second soundbyte![/QUOTE]
It's not too difficult to write in a multi-page article (online or print).

Iraq had stopped the production of WMDs years ago, and we found no WMD stockpiles. We found stockpiles of other weaponry, but those weren't what we originally invaded for.

[QUOTE]If we'd gone to Iraq and taken out any WMDs that we found and then left, I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy. But they'd have been highly short-sighted as well.[/QUOTE]
James, that's what the war was sold as! Bush told everyone it would be a swift incision into the country, we'd find the weapons, destroy them, depose Saddam, and be on our merry way. There was no realistic timeline, and once we got into Bagdad, we soon realized we weren't leaving anytime soon.

[QUOTE]But my god, you'd really be jumping up and down if you lived through World War II, where millions died and where the all-too-late military actions of the Allies gave Hitler time to begin the Holocaust in earnest. In that case we may have been late and the casualties may have been high, but thank god we actually took action.[/QUOTE]
We had no idea of the scope of the Holocaust until we were actually liberating concentration camps. We knew of civil repression, but really didn't understand how terrible the Nazi machine was.

Furthermore, we certainly didn't invade to "stop the Holocaust." That's a fairy tale fed by the winners of the war -- we invaded [i]only after Japan attacked us,[/i] and to help our allies against an aggressive opponent.[/font]

[James]

[quote]Isn't it a matter of acting in a multilateral fashion, with the blessing of the international community? The US did neither in 2003.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of the number of decisions that are taken internationally that are "unilateral"? Not everything has to go through committee.

In addition to that, it's worth pointing out that the U.S.'s action was not unilateral. They were supported by a number of other countries - and not just those who directly participated. There were also a number of Middle Eastern countries that openly supported the action, because they recognized that it helped to ensure their own safety long-term.[/font]

[quote]Absolutely. But 5,000 killed under Saddam is a drop in the bucket when compared to 500,000 killed in the invasion (conservative estimate -- many others range up to 1 million). The invasion caused vastly more loss of life than under Saddam.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's an utterly false statement.

The 5,000 I quoted was the result of [i]one[/i] incident. There are estimates that suggest Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for over one million deaths (some suggestions say even up to 1.50 million, if you include this invasions of Kuwait and Iran).

Furthermore, the numbers you quoted are misleading because you don't mention the fact that [i]many[/i] of those deaths are a direct result of the insurgency movement within Iraq (which itself was a result largely of foreign fighters who are [i]enemies[/i] of the Iraqi people).

As I said earlier, it's very easy to gloss over the detail. But doing so just doesn't do justice to the reality.[/font]

[quote]I'm aware of the legal/compliance reasons, but the infraction of those did not call for the US jumping into such a massive hole, and largely alone. The amount of money spent on this war is ridiculous, to say the least. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well obviously the U.S. government and many others (including myself) disagree with you. It's as simple as that.

The amount of money spent is one thing (because I think some of that is a result of inefficiencies and so on). But, fundamentally, the question is whether or not it was the right thing to do - despite the inefficiencies and poor decision making involved, I am pleased with the fact that 50 million people are now free.

So I think the net result is positive.[/font]

[quote]How does 9/11 change the fundamental chain of events that would occur had we invaded Baghdad? 9/11 was the impetus, but it wouldn't have changed anything on the ground in Iraq.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]We aren't talking about what happened on the ground in Iraq. We've been talking about what led to the decision and whether it was right or wrong.

I am pointing out to you that 9/11 caused a massive change in strategic thinking and that much of this relates to the lead up to the war.

Even though I think the action was correct and has important long-term benefits, I certainly also think that many mistakes were made and it's taken years for the appropriate strategies to be put in place. The first few years were pretty poorly handled - but again, that isn't really what we've been discussing.[/font]

[quote]Perhaps in Australia, but even papers such as the New York Times were beating the war drum. It was sickeningly irresponsible journalism coming form the Op-Ed pages, and that coverage profoundly shifted public opinion in support of invasion. Go search the archives for yourself -- Washington Post, LA Times, or NY Times, they all thought an invasion was justified.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, I think that's because it [i]was[/i] justified.

The big thing that changed was the lack of discovery of WMDs. But that is almost a non-issue and has been misrepresented in the ways I mentioned before.

Having said that, I still don't believe that the media sold the war in general terms. There was a very quick turnaround on that. Many media outlets became visciously opposed to the war very early on. I do read and watch quite a bit of American media, so I'm familiar with how they operate.

I also think it's worth pointing out that many media outlets were initially working on the same intelligence basis as the Bush Administration. The existence of large stockpiles was ultimately incorrect, but I think it was unfortunate that the media emphasized this aspect while ignoring the many other violations of U.N. Resolutions.[/font]

[quote]Most of our Congress voted for invasion, as well. It was a bloodthirsty climate we were in, and because we failed to turn up bin Laden, the Americans wanted another scapegoat. Iraq became American's vent for the rage of 9/11. People saw it as punishing the "same people" (i.e. Arabs) for the attacks.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that's a horribly irresponsible thing to say. It really is. How on Earth can you make that judgment? You're implying that the entire U.S. Congress made a war declaration based on revenge and racism alone. Do you know what is involved with these kinds of actions? There's a ton of work that goes on in committees that specialize in intelligence and foreign affairs. To reduce the action to these simple terms totally misunderstands the entire process.

Just because you have an impression that most people just wanted to "get the Arabs" or whatever doesn't make it so. I remember there being a great deal of discussion, debate and analysis in the lead up - especially as part of Congressional proceedings.[/font]

[quote]It's not too difficult to write in a multi-page article (online or print).

Iraq had stopped the production of WMDs years ago, and we found no WMD stockpiles. We found stockpiles of other weaponry, but those weren't what we originally invaded for.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yes it's easy to read a multi-page article. But who reads the longer articles explaining the details I've mentioned? Apparently you don't and I'm sure most people don't bother to read anything at all.

The reality is that most people only get their news information from these soundbytes. And under such circumstances, I am not surprised that large numbers of people are misinformed.

As far as WMDs...refer to what I said earlier. I will say again that one of the most important aspects of Resolution 1441 had to do with the dismantlement of Iraq's capacity to develop these weapons in future. This is critically important and should not be ignored.

The chief of UNMOVIC - who was against the invasion as I said earlier - also stated emphatically that Iraq had not satisfied UNMOVIC in regard to capacity issues.

Also bear in mind what I mentioned earlier about the illegal ballistic missile program.

When Iraq was first attacked (principally by the U.S., UK and Australia), it actually fired several of these extended-range missiles at Kuwait (I guess the theory being that if they were going down, they'd hurt as many people as they could on the way).

So the issue is a whole lot bigger than finding chemical stockpiles, for example.[/font]

[quote]James, that's what the war was sold as! Bush told everyone it would be a swift incision into the country, we'd find the weapons, destroy them, depose Saddam, and be on our merry way. There was no realistic timeline, and once we got into Bagdad, we soon realized we weren't leaving anytime soon.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as that. I don't think Bush ever said that America would be on its merry way once Saddam was deposed, lol.

I acknowledge that the initial stages of the occupation were more difficult than the Administration had expected and that there were several key mistakes made. I'm not disputing that and I think it's fair to criticize poor handling of those issues.

[i]However[/i], there are a couple of points to make. First of all - again - despite the difficulties involved I still agree with the decision to depose Saddam and free Iraq. That's the fundamental question I was asked.

But secondly, there's no historical perspective here. Do you know that the U.S. was in Germany and Japan for around a decade after WWII? Occupations are never easy [i]or[/i] short.

Also I think that the foreign-based insurgency genuinely threw a spanner into the works, so to speak. It radically changed the situation and caused much larger issues - this was not the fault of either the Allies or the Iraqis.

Still, I think there's a slight generational thing going on here. You're basically telling me that just because the situation didn't work out exactly as it was sold, the whole effort is useless. If Governments ran with that attitude towards everything, nothing would [i]ever[/i] be achieved.

Unfortunately unforseen circumstances do arise and they have to be dealt with as flexibly as possible. Sometimes even the most perfect timeline just won't be met for reasons outside one's own control.[/font]

[quote]We had no idea of the scope of the Holocaust until we were actually liberating concentration camps. We knew of civil repression, but really didn't understand how terrible the Nazi machine was.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you might be missing my overall point here.

My point was that the late actions of the Allied forces allowed the Holocaust to progress as it did. I'm not saying the Allies knew about the extent of it at the time.

However, what we did know was that Hitler had violated the Treaty of Versailles in numerous respects. We also knew that, despite his assurances, he had already begun to invade several countries.

Hitler was coddled for quite a long time before the war began. And while that was a war which had to be fought, it's also true that the Western world learned a major lesson from it - act too late and the consequences can be horrendously worse than taking the right actions at the right times.[/font]

[quote]Furthermore, we certainly didn't invade to "stop the Holocaust." That's a fairy tale fed by the winners of the war -- we invaded only after Japan attacked us, and to help our allies against an aggressive opponent.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well I didn't say we invaded to stop the Holocaust, lol. My point was that the extent of the Holocaust was something that could have been avoided had stronger steps been taken sooner rather than later.

I don't think anybody now peddles the Holocaust fairy tale by the way - I think most people are pretty clear about why the United States got involved in the first place. I don't think that changes the reality that it was an involvement that had to happen sooner or later.[/font]

[Raiha]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think anybody now peddles the Holocaust fairy tale by the way - I think most people are pretty clear about why the United States got involved in the first place. I don't think that changes the reality that it was an involvement that had to happen sooner or later.[/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh ooh I know someone who does! Actually wait, no. I know TWO people who do!

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Duke. Granted both are total loonies, but both get air time. Both get face time. And there's not much to be done about it except to marginalize. Which brings me to my point about terrorism. An actual way to defeat terrorists is to marginalize them, much in the same way the KKK has been marginalized in America along with racists and bigots who have crossed the line from just being annoying to being ridiculous. Take the Reverend Wright for example. Why else would Obama switch pastors? Except to cover his own political rear end. BUT ANYWAY. Wait, now that's three people...

I agree with you James on the points you've made, only we're still in Japan and we're still in Germany. We're also still in Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, and South Korea. We never leave any place once we get there. People should know this by now.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, America is still in those locations...but not as an occupation force. Within ten years those countries were turned back to their own people as such. But the lasting impact of WWII created a need to distribute American power around the world in such a way. And there are strategic reasons why the nations involved are happy with this distribution.

And about the Holocaust fairytail, I just want to mention that I did not mean Holocaust deniers. Those people are a whole different breed.

I just meant that I can't think of many people who say "We went to WWII to stop the Holocaust". As Retri pointed out, it's a well-known fact that the extent of the crisis was not known until the Americans and Russians were literally visiting the camps across Europe.[/font]

[Retribution]

[font=Arial][quote name='James']No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of the number of decisions that are taken internationally that are "unilateral"? Not everything has to go through committee.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but let's not act like US had widespread support for their decision to invade. We summarily dismissed the international community, deciding to invade in the wake of some of the most massive protests in history. The US had no reason or obligation to take the invasion of Iraq [almost entirely] upon its own back, and that's probably the biggest qualm I have with the entire debacle.

[QUOTE]In addition to that, it's worth pointing out that the U.S.'s action was not unilateral. They were supported by a number of other countries - and not just those who directly participated. There were also a number of Middle Eastern countries that openly supported the action, because they recognized that it helped to ensure their own safety long-term.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but with the exception of the UK and KDP/PUK, there were negligible troop contributions. So yes, it was a "multilateral" invasion, but in name only. By and large, the burden was shouldered primarily by the US, in terms of troops, money, and responsibility. It was wrong of our administration to act in such a manner.

[QUOTE]Furthermore, the numbers you quoted are misleading because you don't mention the fact that [i]many[/i] of those deaths are a direct result of the insurgency movement within Iraq (which itself was a result largely of foreign fighters who are [i]enemies[/i] of the Iraqi people).[/QUOTE]
Not even a tenth of the total violent deaths are insurgents. The vast majority of those deaths are civilians killed in the crossfire that would have never materialized had there been no invasion.

Furthermore, the numbers I gave are probably pitifully low at this point, as those were taken from a survey in mid-2007.

[QUOTE]The amount of money spent is one thing (because I think some of that is a result of inefficiencies and so on). But, fundamentally, the question is whether or not it was the right thing to do - despite the inefficiencies and poor decision making involved, I am pleased with the fact that 50 million people are now free.

So I think the net result is positive.[/QUOTE]
Easy to say, when your government isn't the one wasting your tax money.

It's great that they're now free, but at what cost? Sure, 50 million people are no longer under a dictator, but their lives, and the region, have newer and perhaps more intense instability ahead.

[QUOTE]The big thing that changed was the lack of discovery of WMDs. But that is almost a non-issue and has been misrepresented in the ways I mentioned before.[/QUOTE]
According to Bush, the reasons for the invasion were: "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." ([url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html]link[/url])

Call that a "non-issue," but when the entire reason for war is laid out in terms like that, I have a tough time dismissing it as a "non-issue." Do note there is [i]absolutely no mention[/i] of Saddam's violation of international law. So yes, legally there was grounds for the invasion. However it's like being indicted for theft when you were instead a murderer -- you're still going to jail, but the justification is vastly different.

[QUOTE]Having said that, I still don't believe that the media sold the war in general terms. There was a very quick turnaround on that. Many media outlets became visciously opposed to the war very early on. I do read and watch quite a bit of American media, so I'm familiar with how they operate.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't really until it set in that, surprise, the war wasn't going to be a few months long.

[QUOTE]I also think it's worth pointing out that many media outlets were initially working on the same intelligence basis as the Bush Administration. The existence of large stockpiles was ultimately incorrect, but I think it was unfortunate that the media emphasized this aspect while ignoring the many other violations of U.N. Resolutions.[/QUOTE]
I find it disappointed that not only the media, but by and large even the government failed to use that as a justification for war. At the very least, it would've been more salient.

[QUOTE]I think that's a horribly irresponsible thing to say. It really is. How on Earth can you make that judgment? You're implying that the entire U.S. Congress made a war declaration based on revenge and racism alone. Do you know what is involved with these kinds of actions? There's a ton of work that goes on in committees that specialize in intelligence and foreign affairs. To reduce the action to these simple terms totally misunderstands the entire process.[/QUOTE]
No, the Congress made a decision based on their constituents desires and wishes -- they simply represented the voices of Americans. It was the common citizen who was heavily in support of the invasion. You are correct when you say most people are horribly uninformed, because to them, there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam. And yes, it was sold as such by the administration -- that there was some global network of terror through which Saddam and bin Laden collaborated in a dark basement somewhere to blow people up. 9/11 was a selling point for the war, and that was a really sad thing, to justify the invasion based on something totally unrelated.

(And I mean for god's sake, people were calling them "Freedom Fries!" here in opposition to the French over the entire thing)

[QUOTE]Just because you have an impression that most people just wanted to "get the Arabs" or whatever doesn't make it so. I remember there being a great deal of discussion, debate and analysis in the lead up - especially as part of Congressional proceedings.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but they also claimed they "knew" there were WMDs. That's why when Hans Blix adamantly denied that, we gave him the finger and invaded anyway, claiming that he was wrong. Turns out Blix had the right information, and the US/President/Congress had the wrong information. So their deliberations were full of sound and fury, and based on ridiculous pigheadedness.

[QUOTE]But who reads the longer articles explaining the details I've mentioned? Apparently you don't and I'm sure most people don't bother to read anything at all.[/QUOTE]
Excusing the fact I was in 8th grade when we were invading...
I read the major news outlets, and there was much talk of WMDs, and almost no mention of 1991 and the previous UN Resolutions. Seriously James, 2003 was a big failure in substantive media coverage for places like NYT, LAT, and WashPost.

[QUOTE]I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as that. I don't think Bush ever said that America would be on its merry way once Saddam was deposed, lol.[/QUOTE]
Not in those words, but he (and those in support of the invasion) said it would be a relatively quick thing. If you had told anyone back then that we'd be there in 2008, they would've laughed at you.

[QUOTE]But secondly, there's no historical perspective here. Do you know that the U.S. was in Germany and Japan for around a decade after WWII? Occupations are never easy [i]or[/i] short.[/QUOTE]
I know -- and we still have military presence in both countries.

The thing is, it wasn't originally intended to be an occupation, or if it was, it was meant to be abbreviated. I'm also bitter at the administration's disingenuousness when it came to the duration of our occupation. They definitely said it would be a quick thing.

[QUOTE]Still, I think there's a slight generational thing going on here. You're basically telling me that just because the situation didn't work out exactly as it was sold, the whole effort is useless. If Governments ran with that attitude towards everything, nothing would [i]ever[/i] be achieved.[/QUOTE]
I never said useless, I said unfair, disingenuous, poorly planned, shortsighted, and incompetent. Perhaps something good will come of it now that we're already there, but if given a chance I would have voted against the decision to invade. I just feel it did little to benefit anyone, and did a great deal of damage to all parties involved.

[QUOTE]My point was that the late actions of the Allied forces allowed the Holocaust to progress as it did. I'm not saying the Allies knew about the extent of it at the time.[/QUOTE]
The US has generally operated based on its own rational self-interest, and to fight against Hitler in its early stages made little sense from this philosophy's perspective. That's how all countries generally operate.

Also, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to make. By your logic, we should always act immediately because there [i]could[/i] be something terrible going on unbeknownst to us. Fast action is not always best action.[/font]