2 of 10
2
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 29 June 2013 07:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
VYAZMA - 29 June 2013 11:27 AM

Unless you think that the majority of wars have been fought for ideals…since forever.

Two quick questions.  First, since you brought up WWII, why do you think the U.S. went to war with Nazi Germany?  The U.S. was never attacked by Germany.  The U.S. was pretty much insulated from any real attack by them in that time period.  Germany didn’t have much oil for the U.S. to take.  Why did the U.S. go to war against the Nazis? 

Second, why do you think the Jihadists of 9/11 attacked the U.S.?  Was it for their ideals?  Or were they trying to get our oil?  Why?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2013 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I think think the “Jihadists” died to get their 72 vigrens. Because they are so stupid.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2013 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

yea, soo stupid that they totally derailed the most powerful nation in the world with some box cutters.


It’s that same disregard that blinded the Bush Administration and allowed them to tempt fate during their pre-9/11 sleepy phase.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2013 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Rocinante - 29 June 2013 07:02 PM
VYAZMA - 29 June 2013 11:27 AM

Unless you think that the majority of wars have been fought for ideals…since forever.

Two quick questions.  First, since you brought up WWII, why do you think the U.S. went to war with Nazi Germany?  The U.S. was never attacked by Germany.  The U.S. was pretty much insulated from any real attack by them in that time period.  Germany didn’t have much oil for the U.S. to take.  Why did the U.S. go to war against the Nazis? 

Second, why do you think the Jihadists of 9/11 attacked the U.S.?  Was it for their ideals?  Or were they trying to get our oil?  Why?

First, the US went to war with the Nazis because we saw a threat to the order of our territories and resources as expressed through certain allied interests.
If we stayed out, what do you think the long term analysts would assume would happen to all of our allied interests in the Middle East and Africa.(actually the whole planet really-considering France And Holland owned much of Asia and Africa. The good parts. This is just to name a few.)
Plus, can we agree that if the Nazis had assumed total control over Africa, and Europe and much of the Slavic territories, if not all including Russia. Plus England,
all of Scandinavian countries, the Baltic Sea, The Mediterranean Sea, The North Sea, The Atlantic Ocean, The Indian Ocean(with Japan), Most of the good parts of the Pacific Ocean along with Japan..etc etc…Can we agree that that would have presented a completely NEW paradigm for the US’s territories and resources?
To say nothing of the fact that it was probably assumed once they gained this Global Hegemony that they would turn towards North and South America next.
Obviously Pearl Harbor was an excellent way to deal with the Japanese aspect of all that. Even if Pearl Harbor didn’t happen, we would have had to get in against the Japanese too eventually.  That’s why the Japanese attacked us first!(they bungled it, like everything else.) They knew that was coming.(US entering the War.) They and the Germans were going for the big Gambit. The whole show.
So if all of that wasn’t about territories and resources, I don’t know what is.
We don’t just attack to get resources!! We attack to protect resources we already have.
Gosh, you didn’t get that from my opening comments in this OP.  We had Iraq’s oil.  We had Iraq’s oil for decades. We attacked to protect that oil!!
Saddam obviously was going to start talking to other parties about that oil.

As far as terrorist attacks. That’s not war!  Terrorist attacks are most often the extreme expression of ideals.

[ Edited: 30 June 2013 11:09 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2013 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

VYAZMA, thank you for your responses.  I’m just trying to get a handle on where you stand. 

VYAZMA - 30 June 2013 11:05 AM

First, the US went to war with the Nazis because we saw a threat to the order of our territories and resources as expressed through certain allied interests.

So was the U.S. going to war with Nazi Germany a just war? 

VYAZMA - 30 June 2013 11:05 AM

As far as terrorist attacks. That’s not war!  Terrorist attacks are most often the extreme expression of ideals.

Bin laden’s own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:

In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatwā against the United States…entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.
[Emphasis added.]

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 01:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Rocinante-So was the U.S. going to war with Nazi Germany a just war? 

Yes from both the objective and subjective stances. IMHO
Objective for all the reasons I have listed here and in other threads lately.  If a nation was a person….that’s what that person would do. Protect resources.
It’s not a person, it’s a nation.  And that’s what a nation would do if it had the ability.
Now subjectively, it was just because the Nazis were waging a war of naked aggression. On a large scale. Conquering whole nations at will.
The subjective side as a sidenote, is where the Flag waving comes in, and the dutiful call to arms, the ideals, etc etc…The US participation in WWII against the Nazis was a war
in which this dutiful call to arms(ideals) could be pretty well justified.

Bin laden’s own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:

In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatwā against the United States…entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.
[Emphasis added.]

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Well obviously this is semantics. And this could open up a whole new topic of discussion.
In short, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was war.(which doesn’t really fit the definition at all on a number of levels, and I disagree.)
In this case they were fighting a war for ideals we’ll say. But as you quoted here above. They were also fighting the war for Territory(and the attendant resources)
Territory in this instance being “holy places”.
But again wars are fought between nations. Bin Laden’s organization isn’t a nation. They have no territory or country.
But they are obviously fighting for assumed territory and resources.
In both scenarios, the territory and resources comes first. Ideals can be tagged on to suit the specific purpose. But the over-riding ideal is property(territory and resources).
The definition and interpretation of property and rights to property. However they are interpreted. That interpretation is usually manifested into
“ideals” sometimes more aptly than others we’ll say.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

I agree that al-q’aeda is not a nation-state.  But I disagree that a nation-state is required on all sides for it to be considered a war.  Al-q’aeda would have territory if they could.  So by your definition, once they get one little piece of dirt carved out for themselves, then the definition changes.  That’s all that they are missing in their war.  They have their own flag, fighters, a group of people with shared and common beliefs, weapons, desired goals, attack plans and plenty of killing of people.  Ignoring all those aspects (especially the killing) of their war by demanding they must have borders is missing the big picture. 

Insisting that a nation-state with defined borders on a map is a prerequisite before it can be properly defined as a war is refusing to accept the changing realities of the 21st Century.  That’s like saying today’s cell phones are not phones at all because they don’t have cords, rotary dials and bells.  The underlying concept is still there - talk to other people over a distance.  It was a phone when Bell made it then.  It is a phone when Apple makes it today.  It was a war when Germany had borders on a map then.  It is a war when al-Q’aeda kills thousands today.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 12:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.
Wars are fought over resources and territory.
Al Queda is fighting a war for resources and territory. They use the ideals part to get whackos to crash planes into buildings.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
VYAZMA - 28 June 2013 11:31 AM

There’s been discussion as to how and why we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the justification was, objectively the ends justified the means.

Interesting thread and since you and Rocinante seem to be covering a lot of bases I’m trying to keep my peanut gallery comments to a minimum - but just running through this from top again - your 2nd sentence caught my attention.

Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
citizenschallenge.pm - 02 July 2013 08:27 AM
VYAZMA - 28 June 2013 11:31 AM

There’s been discussion as to how and why we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the justification was, objectively the ends justified the means.

Interesting thread and since you and Rocinante seem to be covering a lot of bases I’m trying to keep my peanut gallery comments to a minimum - but just running through this from top again - your 2nd sentence caught my attention.

Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?

That is a great question CC!!  I don’t really know. I would have to say partly. To be honest I haven’t looked too deeply into it.
Mainly because it was such a debacle from so many other angles.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
VYAZMA - 01 July 2013 01:29 AM

Bin laden’s own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:

In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatwā against the United States…entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.
[Emphasis added.]

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Well obviously this is semantics. And this could open up a whole new topic of discussion.
In short, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was war.(which doesn’t really fit the definition at all on a number of levels, and I disagree.)
In this case they were fighting a war for ideals we’ll say. But as you quoted here above. They were also fighting the war for Territory(and the attendant resources)
Territory in this instance being “holy places”.
But again wars are fought between nations. Bin Laden’s organization isn’t a nation. They have no territory or country.
But they are obviously fighting for assumed territory and resources.
In both scenarios, the territory and resources comes first. Ideals can be tagged on to suit the specific purpose. But the over-riding ideal is property(territory and resources).
The definition and interpretation of property and rights to property. However they are interpreted. That interpretation is usually manifested into
“ideals” sometimes more aptly than others we’ll say.


Wikipedia isnt the best of sources.  Interestingly, here is what wikipedia itself says

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F

 

Beyond that, people have a tendency of exagerating when a war has started

The organization has become for this generation what communism was for their parents and grandparent: a monolithic evil force inimical to their very way of life. If pressed most American would define Al Qaeda as an organization created by Osama bin Laden to make war on the United States because… he hates “our way of life”. The local political issues motivating bin Laden and those who follow him received little attention in the United States as does the complex and evolving nature of al-Qaeda.  The decision to dub the struggle against al Qaeda a “Global war on Terrorism” reflects a cold war mentality that sees international affairs as a Manichean contest between good and evil.... a broad ideological struggle between worldviews has replaced traditional rivalries between power blocs and alliances

The “New” Terrorism: Myths and Reality
By Thomas R. Mockaitis, former Eisenhower Chair at the Royal Military Academy of the Netherlands
page 51
http://books.google.com/books?id=MRecbU3FHmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Myths+and+reality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pnHTUYGuLsXuyQH4xoCQBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ


The medias deception mentioned has been documented by Phillip Giraldi
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/


For a more funny presentation see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6przuCU822w  (this is sort of going off the topic 9-11)

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Well put, Abdul. I’m not sure that you interpreted the Wikipedia’s claim to mean they were disclaiming themselves as means to obtain truthful information. It would imply that you couldn’t trust even this article. Their point of discussion likely centered on the acceptable criteria for fair documenting in formal papers and arguments. I think most people understand that it is wise to question a source like Wikipedia as adequate proof for formal arguments. But as the document you refer to says, making use of the linking and knowing how and when they denote titles, can help people aim for the the official sources.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2013 12:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Has this thread been derailed too?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

Doesn’t everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?

It doesn’t matter who controls the oil (not much, anyway) in terms of the oil coming to market.  But it does matter what the nations who profit do with the money.

What would Saddam Hussein do with oil profits?  Build up Kurdish enclaves and help them prosper?  Build quality hospitals and schools for the Shiites?  No, of course not.  Hussein wanted regional power.  Once off the hook for U.N. sanctions he’d revert to type and compete with Iran in terms of arms, including developing weapons of mass destruction.  And that’s exactly why regime change was the goal in Iraq, not oil.  We’re not controlling the oil in Iraq.  China’s positioning to do that (in part because of President Obama’s ineffective diplomacy with Iraq).

An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil.  We’d be fine with that. 

At present our main problem with Iraq is the resurgence of radical Sunni (al Qaeda) sects.  China controlling the oil’s not that huge a problem.  It helps improve the market for selling Jeeps made in China, for example.  The biggest problem in Iraq is the security problem, just as it was before the war.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 June 2013 11:05 AM

We had Iraq’s oil for decades. We attacked to protect that oil!!
Saddam obviously was going to start talking to other parties about that oil.

Oil’s a global market.  If Hussein sold it to China Iraqi production still brings the price of oil down internationally.  It doesn’t really matter who gets it except under conditional like an embargo.  We’re about to let Canada sell the oild from its oil sands to China instead of shipping it to U.S. refineries.  Or do you predict we’ll attack Canada to prevent that from happening?

As far as terrorist attacks. That’s not war!  Terrorist attacks are most often the extreme expression of ideals.

Terrorism is the new way of war.  At least until somebody figures out something better (using the term advisedly).  The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage.  Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it.  But electromagnetic pulse weapons or cybersabotage may eventually serve as the tactical advantage that renders nuclear deterrence obsolete and returns us to the era of catastrophic world war.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 10
2