Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

So, wait, one of your reasons why this war is unjustified is because of the NAME?! What are you, retarded?! Either that or you have waaay too much time on your hands and a conspiracy theory complex.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So, wait, one of your reasons why this war is unjustified is because of the NAME?! What are you, retarded?! Either that or you have waaay too much time on your hands and a conspiracy theory complex.

* here comes an arrogant deity who claims to know everything and begins calling others retarted...

Then give me one good reason why it wasn't called "Endless Thunder" or something like that? Too PC are we today? Trying to shield reality under a name? You'd be surprised at the things you find in apparently meaningless details. Then again, I doubt you even bother to scratch the surface of things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Then give me one good reason why it wasn't called "Endless Thunder" or something like that?

George Bush sucks at coming up with cool names. God, look at Operation Enduring Freedom if you need a better example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are looney toons!

After that statement (of the name), I'm not sure anyone would ever take you seriously!

Do you also believe George Bush was sent by aliens to destroy the world too?

[Master Zen]

If you know you are going into a war which has not been morally justified, you won't put a war which implies massive destructive power now will you? You'll try and shield the operation under a "reasurring" name, probably assuming that the US public is dumb enough to think, well if its called "Iraqui Freedom" then it must mean the main intent of this is to free Iraq...

Frankly Imram, I don't expect you or many others to take me seriousy any more than I don't take you people seriously either.

What should surprise you is that people from the US are the only ones who argue with that PoV. I would trust my country were perhaps doing the right thing if at least the majority of two or three other countries believed so too (and that's still way off). 5% of the world population does not the truth make, sorry.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen
There are no good solutions?? Thank heavens you are not in elected office...

I suppose you, Mr. High and Mighty Know It All knows a good solution to this mess? I would REALLY like to hear it...

And I suppose the people of every other country the US has invaded believes the contrary... ok, right...

uh... yeah... i mean, Germany and Japan seem to have turned out ok...

Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking that's going to get alot of people killed. Ever wonder that the rest of the world does not agree with the way most USians thinks? Ever bother to care why?

Wishful thinking!? WTF do you call doing nothing about Saddam and blindly denying he is a threat? That would get much, much more people killed in the long run. Dont you understand how many people needlessly die everyday under his regime, cause he would rather sqaunder the food for oil money to build palaces rather than build his infrastructure and feed his people? Do you know the possible effects of a hypothetical future war where Saddam seizes a neighboring country and holds coalition forces at bay with WoMD? Why put the threat off to a later date when it could be much more easily and less bloodily dealt with now?

So you are admitting that it is not necessarily good, and past experience shows that toppling dictators does not leave countries in the right hands forever. I am amazed that 90% of all people from the US I've ever talked to think as you do. It's a shame because with such an educational system I would expect people to open their minds a bit, stop believing all the crap their government dishes out and realize once and for all that the war in Iraq is being waged for less than moral reasons.

talk about close minded Germany seems to still be in good hands... Japan still seems to be in good hands... more recently Panama seems to be doing pretty well... what past experiences are you talking about that so distictly show that toppling dictators fail? Pretty poor for one that criticizes American intellegence...

It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

it is a gay name...

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

I REALLY hope this isnt a serious arguement.

Kman

[Kramerman]

5% of the world population does not the truth make, sorry.

well, disregarding the suspiciously low figure...

about 7% of Americans are admitted atheists/agnostics... by your logic since the vast majority believes in a God in some shape, way or form, than they must be right. My God! i better find religion quick, or ill be goin to hell, because im obviously wrong, if the majority believes in some sort of God!


The "majority is against the war so it must be wrong" arguement doesn't cut it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I suppose you, Mr. High and Mighty Know It All knows a good solution to this mess? I would REALLY like to hear it...

Solution: stop sticking your neck in where it doesn't belong. 20 years down the road and I'm willing to bet the world will be a better place.

uh... yeah... i mean, Germany and Japan seem to have turned out ok...

Do you even want me to start listing the 73 armed interventions made by the US in Latin America alone? And that's just one region...

The only incentive to prop up Germany and Japan was to use them as major cold war allies. No other victim of US invasion or regime change has had that luck.

Wishful thinking!? WTF do you call doing nothing about Saddam and blindly denying he is a threat? That would get much, much more people killed in the long run. Dont you understand how many people needlessly die everyday under his regime, cause he would rather sqaunder the food for oil money to build palaces rather than build his infrastructure and feed his people? Do you know the possible effects of a hypothetical future war where Saddam seizes a neighboring country and holds coalition forces at bay with WoMD? Why put the threat off to a later date when it could be much more easily and less bloodily dealt with now?

Today Saddam, tommorow let's see who's next. And let's forget about possible consequences down the line 10-20-50 years from now about having the entire Arab world despise the US, let alone forget that fact that most people in the world are anti-US these days. From being the most envied and loved country in the world to being the most hated. There's got to be a reason right?

Now, considering all the nutcase dictators in the world, the arguments that you people give to attack Iraq are the same which can be used to attack many other countries. As I said time and again, the only difference is that those "other" dictators mostly have played by US rules, does the US give a hoot about the Saudi people living in that other despotic regime which squanderes billions in oil for their own palaces too? Nope. Because they are "allied". Thats the only difference.

talk about close minded Germany seems to still be in good hands... Japan still seems to be in good hands... more recently Panama seems to be doing pretty well... what past experiences are you talking about that so distictly show that toppling dictators fail? Pretty poor for one that criticizes American intellegence...

Since you have given 3 examples, I'll give you a couple of examples of US invasions and regime changes which did not leave a pleasant aftermath:

1) Chile 73 - left it with 16 years of dictatorship
2) Iran 53 - installs Shah pro-western corrupt regime
3) Guatemala 54 - overthrows anti-US government installs military junta
4) Vietnam 60s-75 - need I mention?
5) Cambodia 72 - paves the way for Pol-Pot & friends
6) El Salvador 80s - aids right-wing government during civil war, leaves country devastated
7) Nicaragua 80s - same
8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...
9) Somalia 93 - still dirt poor...
10) Dominican Republic 63 - didn't help much either.

That's just 10 to your 3. I can list many many more... As you can see, the overall record isn't particualry favorable.

I REALLY hope this isnt a serious arguement.

Kman

Guess what, IT IS!!!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

well, disregarding the suspiciously low figure...

about 7% of Americans are admitted atheists/agnostics... by your logic since the vast majority believes in a God in some shape, way or form, than they must be right. My God! i better find religion quick, or ill be goin to hell, because im obviously wrong, if the majority believes in some sort of God!


The "majority is against the war so it must be wrong" arguement doesn't cut it.

So if I ask a mathematical question that only 7% of the population knows then it's wrong because most people get it wrong?

YOUR logic is a little flawed here, because unlike a political argument, a religious one has scientifical basis behind it to prove or not that god exists. Politics are ultimately opinions which by default MAY be wrong and to which there may not be one correct answer. So what really surprises me is that 5% of the world population believes this one subjective piece of so-called truth while the other 95% believes another.... sorry but since neither sides are backed up by science or math or any other exact form of measurement then I will tend to side with the majority when it is just so overwhelming, even more so when the minority is confined to just one major political or national group.

When so many people from different countries, religions, ethnic groups, social classes, genders, etc. disagree with you, GET THE PICTURE.

And funny...it seems only USians are arguing against me... (maybe a brit will pop up...) why am I not surprised

[Kramerman]

Solution: stop sticking your neck in where it doesn't belong. 20 years down the road and I'm willing to bet the world will be a better place.

Wrong. that solves nothing. There are those who hate the US and are actively trying to destroy it. If we just do nothing about it, they might succeed. Not doing anything is perhaps the worst thing we could possiblely do. This is a bad idea, and by all means, it is definately not a good idea. As i said before, there is no 'good' solution, and what you presented is a terrible one.

Do you even want me to start listing the 73 armed interventions made by the US in Latin America alone? And that's just one region...

hmm... with the exception of very few, i dont remember any of those being about the US going in to change the regime into a democracy... that is the arguement i clearly stated . Toppling a dictator is one thing. Toppling him and replacing him with a democracy is another, which i argue has been quite successful in the past.

1) Chile 73 - left it with 16 years of dictatorship
2) Iran 53 - installs Shah pro-western corrupt regime
3) Guatemala 54 - overthrows anti-US government installs military junta
4) Vietnam 60s-75 - need I mention?
5) Cambodia 72 - paves the way for Pol-Pot & friends
6) El Salvador 80s - aids right-wing government during civil war, leaves country devastated
7) Nicaragua 80s - same
8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...
9) Somalia 93 - still dirt poor...
10) Dominican Republic 63 - didn't help much either.

1) dunno much about this one
2) not an installed democracy, so it is irrelevent to my arguements
3) same as 3
4) we installed no government here, we merely were supporting a favored one, regardless of its indecency, we were not responsible for its existance. no regime change to democracy, thus another irrelevant point
5) did not install a failed democracy. another irrelevant point
6) did not change regime to democracy, so irrelevent to my arguement
7) same as 6
8) cause we failed to remove him in the first place, not that we fully tried anyway. you could use this arguement for saddam after '91, hes still there...
9) Somalia had no government to begin with. we merely tried to get rid of General Aidid because he hoarded food aid to the starving country. After the Battle of Mog, the US public wanted out. No failed democracy was ever installed. yet ANOTHER irrelevent point
10) dunno much about this one

That's just 10 to your 3. I can list many many more... As you can see, the overall record isn't particualry favorable.

Most anytime the US has installed a democracy, as we plan to do in Iraq, it has been quite succesful, yet you have argued differently. The points you use here however are completely irrelevent to counter my arguement and dont support yours either, as you mention many that had absolutely nothin to do with democracy, let alone even regime change. 8 of your 10 points were irrelevent. The other 2 i dont know enough about to make any judgement, they are probably irrelevent too, if i follow the pattern.

try again

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen


So if I ask a mathematical question that only 7% of the population knows then it's wrong because most people get it wrong?

what?

YOUR logic is a little flawed here, because unlike a political argument, a religious one has scientifical basis behind it to prove or not that god exists.

that is the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Please inform me, when did science ever prove/disprove the existence of God?

Politics are ultimately opinions which by default MAY be wrong and to which there may not be one correct answer.

religion is the exact same way One's spiritual views are merely their opinion on spirituality, no? Religion is ultimately opinions

So what really surprises me is that 5% of the world population believes this one subjective piece of so-called truth while the other 95% believes another.... sorry but since neither sides are backed up by science or math or any other exact form of measurement then I will tend to side with the majority when it is just so overwhelming, even more so when the minority is confined to just one major political or national group.

again, i believe those numbers are rather flawed...

you have not countered my analogy at all. your arguements failed. try again.

And funny...it seems only USians are arguing against me... (maybe a brit will pop up...) why am I not surprised

hmm, well it seems like a whole 3 people are argueing against you, adn considering this forum has a slight majority of Americans on it, its not unprobably at all that they might encounter your posts and argue with it.

I find it interesting that NO ONE is backing up your arguements...

[DinoDoc]

8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...

This wasn't an invasion or a regime change. It was an attempted assassination. It achieved the objective of making Lybia less of a pain in the ass though.

[Velociryx]

Good plan! Let's do nothing.

Let's make the USA an isolationist stronghold and see how long it is till the rest of the world comes whining for the USA to get involved somewhere.

When we do nothing, people complain.

When we act, people complain.

Conclusion - People will complain no matter what we do, so we're better off doing the best we can, with the cards we have.

Rocket science?

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

Wrong. that solves nothing. There are those who hate the US and are actively trying to destroy it. If we just do nothing about it, they might succeed. Not doing anything is perhaps the worst thing we could possiblely do. This is a bad idea, and by all means, it is definately not a good idea. As i said before, there is no 'good' solution, and what you presented is a terrible one.

Have you ever thought that perhaps the US is hated BECAUSE of its interventionist tendencies and not the other way around? Other than in latin-america, the US had not been hated before WW2 when it was just as prosperous. See any relation?

hmm... with the exception of very few, i dont remember any of those being about the US going in to change the regime into a democracy... that is the arguement i clearly stated . Toppling a dictator is one thing. Toppling him and replacing him with a democracy is another, which i argue has been quite successful in the past.


1) dunno much about this one
2) not an installed democracy, so it is irrelevent to my arguements
3) same as 3
4) we installed no government here, we merely were supporting a favored one, regardless of its indecency, we were not responsible for its existance. no regime change to democracy, thus another irrelevant point
5) did not install a failed democracy. another irrelevant point
6) did not change regime to democracy, so irrelevent to my arguement
7) same as 6
8) cause we failed to remove him in the first place, not that we fully tried anyway. you could use this arguement for saddam after '91, hes still there...
9) Somalia had no government to begin with. we merely tried to get rid of General Aidid because he hoarded food aid to the starving country. After the Battle of Mog, the US public wanted out. No failed democracy was ever installed. yet ANOTHER irrelevent point
10) dunno much about this one

Most anytime the US has installed a democracy, as we plan to do in Iraq, it has been quite succesful, yet you have argued differently. The points you use here however are completely irrelevent to counter my arguement and dont support yours either, as you mention many that had absolutely nothin to do with democracy, let alone even regime change. 8 of your 10 points were irrelevent. The other 2 i dont know enough about to make any judgement, they are probably irrelevent too, if i follow the pattern.

try again

So all failed points are when the US actually didn't even bother to install democracy...hmmm...so now you are actually accepting the fact that those interventions were done with utter disregard to the victims.

What I see though is that the main critique of this operation has been forgotten: that regardless of the eventual outcome (and I for one truly hope for the sake of the Iraqui people that they do end up in a democracy), the REASONS behind this war are not to "give the Iraqui people freedom". The US wouldn't give a hoot if Saddam were the tyrant he is if he didn't pose a threat to US interests (WMD) and if George Jr. didn't wan't to avenge his daddy's lost chance.

So now saying that this is a war to liberate the Iraqui freedom is just pure crap. The "liberation" is a sideshow, used to make good out of an otherwise rotten idea.

Answer me this truthfuly:

If Saddam didn't have WMD, and if he sucked-up a little more to the US like the Saudi's do, would the US have bothered to invade Iraq even though he is a tyrannical despot? NO and you know it, and that proves the fact that liberating the Iraqui people is not the main objective of this conflict and never will be.

Is it just too much a coincidence that this sabre-rattling, the labeling of countries into an axis-of-evil, comes AFTER 9/11. Saddam has been the same SOB since gulfwar1 and yet only now do we hear this sudden urge to free the Iraquis. Even before 9/11 this same Bush administration didn't give a hoot.

Nice try but no cigar.

[Sava]

I'll support some of Zen's points (whatever that's worth ). This is not about liberating Iraq. It's about installing a government that we can control. Zen is right, if Saddam were like the Saudi's, took Bush's bribes, and listened to the US, then this war wouldn't be happening. None of the "Arab Allies" are Democracies (the Turks maybe, but even they were bribed). In fact, they are all about as oppressive as Saddam, if not more. This isn't about freedom... you may have been conned into believing it is, but its not.