Whether or not it can solve problems has rarely be an issue. It's about solving problems in a better, more humane way. Also killing tends to make martyrs of people.

The vast majority of those are them killing each other. That's just the way they work. If we left it's just get worse until a new crazy dictator rules them. A people who will not rule them selves must be ruled by others.

So, you're saying we shouldn't have tried to set up a democratic government? I thought you SUPPORTED the administration. :downs:

I like how those 45K people are chalked up to Americans, when so many of them were caused by extremists from neighboring countries.

Meh. Not really. I don't agree with a lot he's done, but hindsight is 20/20. I just think it's stupid when people try build him up as this massively evil person. Honestly, rampant exaggeration only weakens his reputation as a bad president. I always get a kick out of people calling him a "religious fanatic".

I give him a "C".



Yeah. It's like saying FDR killed six million jews.

No. A civil war was always going to happen in Iraq, it was just a matter of time until it did. A perfect example of this is what happened in Yugoslavia after Tito died: the region is strongly and ethnically divided, but it was kept in check by a strong - perhaps brutal - secular dictator.

The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that we're also dealing with a pre-constitutional democracy. Another example would be racism in the early United States: rampant and unchecked. You see, a democracy without hundreds of years of historical and legal precedent very quickly devolves into a dictatorship of the majority. In this particular case the majority happens to be a bloodthirsty Shi'ite mob who would love nothing more than to butcher the Sunnis and the Kurds, so your super-fantastic idea of a democracy probably isn't going to turn out too well for 45% of the Iraqi population.

The United States, as well, is not equipped to "lead" the Iraqi people for the simple fact that you cannot "lead" people who want to "murder each other". All you can do is exactly what Saddam did - subjugate them.

Frankly the only possible solution to resolve the situation with a minimum of bloodshed would be dividing Iraq into three separate countries. Thanks to the population distribution you could divide the country along racial/religious lines with very little intercession. However, it is worth pointing out that Kurdistan would be bordering Turkey. If you don't know what that would result in you have absolutely no business talking about this subject.

Bush didn't know or care what he was getting into when he started that war. If not for the American decision to invade, the vast majority those people wouldn't have died. That shouldn't be so hard to see.

The invasion caused this civil war. Period.

I follow you except for the parts where you think that you're disagreeing with me.




The cause of the Civil War was simply them not having a crazy dictator. Bush thought that he could establish democracy and get rid of WMDs. That was the whole point remember?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. Did you read anything that Jon C just said?

JoS, this civil war was waiting to happen, if the Americans hadn't invaded, something else down the road would have caused it. I love how you can forgive the others that kill civilians simply because "Well, it wouldn't have happened if the Americans hadn't showed up!" Because, you know, it's like they were forced by the Americans to travel from other countries to blow up a car in the middle of a market place simply to kill 3 American soldiers. I love your logic.

In my opinion, killing someone, if not in self defense, is murder. However, I can understand how people would disagree with that.

I guess my original post was simply to point out that I'm all for the exploitation of violent criminals and that we should be making a profit off of them. $50,000 for a candlelight dinner with Charles Manson? Traveling dictator museum, $25 per ticket. The possibilites are endless.

No, this is a stupid argument too. A lot of what's happening is happening because Iran wants a piece of the Iraqi pie. Saddam Hussein wasn't the most popular kid on the block. The whole point of the Ba'athist party was that it was a secular movement aimed at preventing exactly what's happening in Iraq right now. For some strange reason the neighboring Muslim nations didn't want this notion of "secular unity" to spread :confused:. Muslim countries have been gunning for Iraq for a long time now.

Saddam didn't just keep the Iraqis united under fear, he also kept a lot of the militants and terrorists out. Of course, Bush wouldn't want you to know that he and Bin Laden hated each other - but they did. Oh, they did.

And there's also the fact that the Middle East has always had its fair share of radicals and militant extremists. Iraq's a great excuse to use your guns. It'd be like if the US Government declared it legal to kill illegal immigrants. California wouldn't just be for Californians anymore, if you take my meaning.

I'm failing to see why you feel you need to say that, Joncy, I didn't say anything against it. I was saying foreigners are just as responsible for the casualties they caused as America is for theirs. I never said anything about Saddam and bin Laden being good pals, or Iran wants nothing to do with Iraq. If you're going to go off on someone, at least do it in context, or, you know, actually disagree with them.

Yes, and I agree with every word he wrote.

You guys don't understand.

If Bush had done his homework, he would have realized he couldn't replace this dictatorship with a democracy without causing a civil war.

And I'm not 'forgiving the others'. I'm just pointing out where the responsibility for this situation lies. And then I'm not even mentioning falsification of evidence.

Geniuses.

People who are too smart to go into politics are punished by those who are dumb.
-Plato

I am disagreeing with you.

Saddam Hussein provided an environment that was hostile toward both sectarian violence as well as incursions by foreign militants. Even if Saddam Hussein had died of natural causes, it's much less likely that the radicals would be so interested in meddling in what amounts to an internal (Muslim vs. Muslim) affair. It's also unlikely that the interested states (Iran) would be taking a proactive approach toward the issue, because that kind of jihad is a very bad kind of jihad.

Essentially the United States tore down a dictator who was keeping invaders at bay, when the United States was neither equipped nor qualified to continue preventing those incursions. I would, in fact, argue that the influx of foreign vigilantes is very much the fault and responsibility of the United States.

Edit: At this point the floodgates are open. The civil war was going to happen and it was a pretty fair bet how it was going to turn out. Now we get to see which side gets bigger guns donated from their Iranian/Syrian/Saudi/terrorist buddies. Pretty much the only country in the region that won't get involved is Turkey, unless the Kurds get their own country in which case Turkey's going to get a new province about 10 minutes later.

You don't understand.

Sadaam Hussein is still an ******* that deserves to die, no matter the situation.

Exactly my point.

No, see, you're under the impression that I somehow think that if Saddam was in power, these foreigners would be there. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying, once more, and I know this is hard for you, so I'll make it bold: the foreigners who are killing Iraqis are responsible for the Iraqis they kill, be they American, Iranian, Paki, whatever.

But who made that entire scenario possible? Who created the circumstances for these events to occur? That's right, the US government. So in other words, they're responsible. It must be a hard truth for you, I guess.

Right, because once more, the U.S. held a gun to their head and made them blow themselves up in front of a business...

And god knows, that didn't start years before the Iraq war.

Making what you've already said bold isn't going to make me agree with you. I saw what you said and I disagree. I do not blame the US for the civil war that is happening, but the US did create a situation that is a great boon for terrorists and extremists from other nations.

Had the Iraqi police and military remained intact the Iraqis would have been much better-prepared to defend themselves and their factions from foreign threats. But even that's secondary. Right now Iraq is becoming the next great land grab of the Middle East. Neighboring countries want to establish a foothold. Terrorist activity has jumped - Al Qaeda, for instance, was never particularly active in Iraq before because of their incompatibility with Saddam Hussein.

You aren't just looking at Iranians who are going to Iraq to fight the battle against the zionist jewish marines :v:. You're looking at criminals who are going to Iraq to get their rocks off too. Imagine, if you will, a major American city. Now imagine what would happen if all of the police suddenly ceased to exist and the utilities quit working. Yeah. Fun, isn't it?
Wait. That happened. It was New Orleans. And people were driving to New Orleans from neighboring states to shoot looters. I just... I'm not sure how to wrap up this post other than to say that, yes, I still think the US was responsible for making this situation so much worse.

So, you blame Katrina for roaming bands of buttholes shooting innocents instead of the roaming bands of buttholes themselves. Awesome, I'm glad I understand where you're coming from now.

Katrina was an uncontrollable factor, as it is nature.

The U.S. war on Iraq isn't.

Of course the Katrina incident wasn't an excuse for the riots, but my point is they're two different situations, and thus shouldn't be your arguement.

It's still the factor that allowed people to kill others. If he wants to compair the U.S. military to Katrina, that's fine with me, his logic would still be Katrina is at fault.

Words -> Mouth
Or, if you prefer, kudos on the strawman argument. Or however you want to label your fallacy.

If you leave a food sitting out on a counter for a week, are mold spores to blame for the food spoiling or are you to blame for not putting your food in the fridge? The Middle East a region which is rife with sectarian and racial tensions, religious extremism, and where virtually everyone is armed with an automatic rifle. The United States took an area smack dab in the middle of this powder keg, rendered it bereft of law and order, and people are actually surprised that the nuts are coming out of the woodwork to join in the melee?

Coincidentally enough though, I also blame the US government (at all levels, but especially the state of Louisiana) for what happened with Katrina. I could elaborate but I don't want to digress.

I really hate invoking the names of logical fallacies. I really do. But, seriously... that's a strawman right there. That is such a strawman that if it were a real strawman, right now it would have fallen over and the entire world would have been buried in straw.

Perhaps next time you try to compare a situation to another, you should make sure that they are indeed comparable. You tried to show that the U.S. was responsible for the infrastructure of Iraq collapsing, and in the next paragraph brought up how Katrina did the same thing. Hmmm...damn those strawmen...

Oh wait, I forgot the :saddowns: :words: :saddowns:

Was the US also the factor that allowed Saddam to kill so many Kurds? You know, he won't actually be executed until after his next trial, which is for genocide. Whenever I hear about the war, and all these tales of woe, I just think of those nice Kurds. What about those claims that the war is making it more dangerous here? I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen any planes fly into buildings in a while. (Well, except for that Yankee pitcher. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't a terrorist.) So, no. Maybe this 'stay the course' thing isn't the best plan, but it's certainly a step up from running away with our tail between our legs.

Interestingly enough, Saddam's "law and order" involved mostly torturing and killing people. Aren't you against that sort of stuff?

Regardless of anything else, you can't blame anyone for the death but the guy pulling the trigger. I could hand you a gun and spit in your face, but it's still your fault if you shoot me.

On another topic, the partisan politics around here are getting out of hand. I just saw an advert, not even approved by the candidate it was toting. It was suggesting that 'all of Virginia's newspapers agree', and showed a little map covered in the names of local papers. Then it started quoting papers. It had about sixteen quotes. Unfortunately, the quotes were from a grand total of four newspapers. Way to spin. There was also one who claimed my senator voted 'against a woman's right to choose'. No, he voted for the babies right to live. Isn't that obvious? It also claimed that because the senator voted mostly conservative, that he wasn't 'siding with me'. Wait, what now? Aren't I conservative? I must not be, there's no way I could be, because this ad says I'm not! On the other side, all we get is mantras about democrats raising taxes. It's pathetic. That's all they can come up with? "Yeah, but... THEY WANT YOUR MONEY!". Geezus.

So take your pick. Apparently, every single Republican is all buddy-buddy with Bush and does whatever Bush wants no matter what, and every single Democrat is an amoral beast who wants to steal all your money and give it to pot heads.

They are comparable if you know how to read. I explained how they are comparable. Borrowing your favorite debate strategy, I will now restate what I previously said in a bold typeface because you are too blithe to correctly interpret my statement for yourself: in the absense of law and order, chaotic elements will emerge in any part of the world (even one as civilized and developed as the United States). The United States military was directly responsible for creating a situation without law and without order, allowing said chaotic elements to emerge in Iraq.

Aye...so was Katrina.

No, the complete dearth of competence on the part of the authorities is what caused the problem in New Orleans. If the utilities had failed and the police spontaneously abandoned their jobs for any other reason the same exact scenario would have played out. The hurricane was not the cause, it was the catalyst. A line of dominoes is still going to fall over no matter whose finger pushes the one at the end.

Edit: And before you post what I would post in response to this line of reasoning, in Iraq the US military is who set up the dominoes to be pushed over.

Perhaps the bleeding-hearts are to blame, for not allowing the military to do it's job properly? Screaming about the 'rights' of the man shooting at our soldiers, and throwing fits whenever our soldiers do anything like shoot at a car that won't stop for the roadblock. Our military is just as capable of imposing 'law and order' as Saddam was, the difference is we aren't barbarians. It all comes down to a fundamental difference between our philosophies. You believe America is bad. I understand that we have made some mistakes, but believe we are a noble country.

I'm going to sit here and still say "Those who killed are to blame no matter who they are." Yeah, it's a shame the circumstance "allowed" them to kill people, but they still did. No one forced the foreigners to kill people, they did it themselves.

Actually I believe that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of our planet, and I also believe its very existence is an amazing historical improbability. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, is my personal idol. I certainly don't fault the American people for what transpired in Iraq nor will I ever. Among other reasons, the United States isn't even a democracy - it's a constitutional republic - meaning even the citizens are not to blame for what's happening.

I blame Bush for manufacturing evidence and warmongering to gain votes. I blame Rumsfeld for being the worst secretary of defense in the history of the Universe and not listening to the generals when they told him such. I blame Cheney for war profiteering. I blame Republican and Democratic congressmen alike for flip-flopping and pandering, voting to support a war when it's popular and then lying about it later. I blame Condoleezza Rice for never doing her job ever.

Basically what I'm saying is that I blame a bunch of deadbeat politicians for trying to ruin a good thing. Remember how I idolize the founding fathers? Here's one of my favorite quotes: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That's certainly your right. I'm willing to agree to disagree, but I'm still going to argue that the situation would have been much better if the Iraq War started as a civil war (instead of just ending like one).

I see points on both sides.

It's all circumstantial. One cannot point the finger at each cause because of an effect; doing so is not the most productive you could do. So, instead of blaming specifics, just blame the thing as a whole. If you're looking for specific details in a painting, all you see is colors.

Uh, who says the 45,000 figure includes all Iraqi civilians that died? I was under the impression that's how many died because of America (mostly from aerial bombing, I would imagine). If you're so smart, how many of the 45,000 deaths were caused by Americans?

...Uh, Aerial bombing? The aerial bombing campaigns that stopped years ago? Is that the aerial bombing you're talking about? "If I'm so smart" I'd know that it'd take years of dentists working to come up with any number of relative accuracy, and that the 45K isn't close to reality. I'd also be smart enough to realize that Americans can't go throw buildings counting the dead, and then figuring out which ones were dead because of Americans, and which ones were dead from terr'ists.

[edit: typo]

And I certainly agree, and I don't think Iraq is better off right now than had we never gotten involved, especially since I'm under the impression that the war was started for just this reason: to bring those foreigners to a central place outside of America in which we can shoot them. I believe we sacrificed Iraq in the name of national safety.

I just noticed how well your sig fits you, Roach