what is the meaning of this war?

[KR Skull]

What is the meaning of this War?

ok i know that there is a thread that talks about The Execution of Saddam

Hussein but that isn't what i am going to talk about

what i am going to talk about is that the reason starting the war in iraq is to

capture Saddam Hussein right?

well thay captured him and Executed him but we still hear that the war in

iraq hasn't finished no the question is why?

we all know that when a solider achives has objectives he returnes home

becuse his job there has ended.

my opinion is that there is something big is going on in there. it is much

bigger than Executing Saddam Hussein.

so what do you think?

 

[Soul Saver]

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

As for the point of the war, I think that there could be an economic case, if a hard to defend economic case, and of course Hussein's abuse of human rights. However, funny how the US and UK are playing best buddies with other tyrannical regimes. Double standards, or what? Really though, it was an attempt to make it look as if action was being taken over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If there really were WMDs, then by all means, action should have been taken. However, the military intelligence was spun and twisted to meet sinister political aims.

Now, it's a war of attrition and ideology which cannot be won by sheer force of arms, it seems.

 

[Donald Trump]

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

I'd say it ended earlier, like when they captured baghdad( don't know how it's fucking spelt, so no one comment on it, or tell me how it's spelt correctly)

the cause of the war and the reasons behind it are more complicated then to get rid of saddam. However, I don't intend to discuss them here.

The thing is, by removing Saddam, there is now a power vacuum in Iraq, which is being filled by Shia muslims mostly. They kill Sunnis when they see fit, Saddam was pro sunni, even though they are in the minority. So part of this is just revenge, also they don't get along, like Prods and catholics in NI.

America is rtying to stabilise Iraq. Bush and co are getting lots of shit from people, because they are complaining because US and colalition troops are being killed. Pretty fucking selfish imo as they are helping people in Iraq but whatever.

Yes there is something much bigger going on, as to what, we can only speculate.

Oh and cerri only merged the threads so she could have an extra poast

 

[KR Skull]

I'd say it ended earlier, like when they captured baghdad( don't know how it's fucking spelt, so no one comment on it, or tell me how it's spelt correctly)

the cause of the war and the reasons behind it are more complicated then to get rid of saddam. However, I don't intend to discuss them here.

The thing is, by removing Saddam, there is now a power vacuum in Iraq, which is being filled by Shia muslims mostly. They kill Sunnis when they see fit, Saddam was pro sunni, even though they are in the minority. So part of this is just revenge, also they don't get along, like Prods and catholics in NI.

America is rtying to stabilise Iraq. Bush and co are getting lots of shit from people, because they are complaining because US and colalition troops are being killed. Pretty fucking selfish imo as they are helping people in Iraq but whatever.

Yes there is something much bigger going on, as to what, we can only speculate.

Oh and cerri only merged the threads so she could have an extra poast

are you saying that bush left the army there becuse iraq can be invaded or simply influenced by a country around it. so there job is to portect it from the invaders.

what i think about that is this:

the US thinks that the other countrys may be the invaders. but the people of iraq are saying that the US is the invader

 

[Erythritol]

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

As for the point of the war, I think that there could be an economic case, if a hard to defend economic case, and of course Hussein's abuse of human rights. However, funny how the US and UK are playing best buddies with other tyrannical regimes. Double standards, or what? Really though, it was an attempt to make it look as if action was being taken over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If there really were WMDs, then by all means, action should have been taken. However, the military intelligence was spun and twisted to meet sinister political aims.

Now, it's a war of attrition and ideology which cannot be won by sheer force of arms, it seems.

So. If you're going to make ridiculous statements, you're going to have to be able to back them up with empirical proof. So, with what regimes that commit mass human rights violations is the United States friendly? Last I checked, Saddam Hussein was beyond tyrannical; he was guilty of using chemical weapons against an ethnic minority group. So, what regimes did you have in mind?

Anyway, Iraq is a very complicated war. It was very poorly managed, that much is obvious. However, we're in it now, so we can't just pretend it never happened. God only knows what Bush was thinking, if he was thinking at all. I believe after 9/11, he made the allegation that Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaeda (which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, to be quite honest). I think what he really wanted to do was establish a democracy in Iraq, and have it serve as a shining example for the middle east. I believe his hope was that other middle eastern states would see the success of Iraq, and Islamism would wither and die. Okay, so it didn't exactly work out that way. Obviously. For one, way to target a completely SECULAR government. We're attempting to fight radical Islamism, and Bush overthrows one of the few secular middle eastern governments. Brilliant. But I digress. Severe mistakes were made. Now we're involved in a civil war of sorts. And I would argue that it's no longer a war (America v Iraq), per se, but a policing mission. I think it would be a terrible idea to pull out all of the troops now. I really worry about what would happen to Iraq if that were to happen. I feel as though it would break down into little factions who would continue fighting amongst each other. Surrounding countries would probably get involved. Radicalism would run rampant. Al Qaeda (and other radical Islamist groups) would probably reestablish their bases within Baghdad or the surrounding area. Because, guess what? There's no more secular government to persecute them! However, I don't believe that the United States should necessarily attempt to set up a democracy. Let's be honest here, democracy is not going to work for everyone. It will probably fail in the middle east. I don't think that the United States is an "invader" necessarily, but I can understand if Iraqi citizens feel that way. I think the United States means well, but all of its well-meaning actions have been poorly and awkwardly executed. To be quite honest, Iraq really isn't much of a country. Its borders were arbitrarily drawn by a European power a hundred or so years ago. As a result, there are many different peoples-- who don't necessarily get along well-- who are crammed into a country together. Is it so shocking that it's embroiled in a civil war? Many of these different groups want their own country. The United States, of course, had to get involved....so here we are. We can't really leave, but no one wants to stay. The United States is just trying to protects its interests: namely security. If we leave completely, like I said before, extemeist groups will reestablish themselves and probably attempt to attack the United States (or another western nation) again.

PS: I don't think this thread should have been merged with the other one...it's kind of a different subject.

 

[Soul Saver]

Ridiculous? I'm afraid not. Though, perhaps "best buddies" was a little ill-chosen.
Well, at the time of the Iraq invasion, the UK was still being quite friendly with Mugabe's regime.
And at the moment, there is little criticism of China's human rights record by senior US and UK politicians, and little is done about it. Don't forget that the UK and US are also using Saudi Arabia, which has the most appaling treatment of women in the world, by bolstering its armed forces to meet those of Iran. Or that western nations have not taken action in many other situations, when they could have. No doubt, China is more complicated than most, as it has massive armed forces and an economic stranglehold on the west, but to simply not criticise... reminds one of allied appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not to mention that China appears to have strong influence over its satellite nations... namely Vietnam, North Korea, Burma, Cambodia, etc, and thus those nations are not going to face western military action any time soon.

I think that the Iraq war was neccessary, but the way evidence was exaggerated, and the lack of military intervention in similar nations, leaves something to be desired. Yet again, most wars aren't over human rights abuses. An illusion of "moral intervention" is often just used to convince the dumb masses into supporting them. It mostly works, whether a war is "neccessary" or not. Add to that, the conflict between the west and Islamic radicalism... whichever is the current downright mortal enemy or scapegoat, and you get quite the following from the masses.
You're right, the current political situation is very complicated, even confusing.

 

[KR Skull]

you are right colonel volgin

The war has no purpose other than oil. This "war on terror" is a horseshit cover meant to convince this dumb**** nation that it's the right thing to do.I'd go so far as to say that 9/11 was orchestrated in order to give the US a reason to invade.

Think about it: If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat? Give me a goddamn break.

 

[Donald Trump]

you are right colonel volgin

The war has no purpose other than oil. This "war on terror" is a horseshit cover meant to convince this dumb**** nation that it's the right thing to do.I'd go so far as to say that 9/11 was orchestrated in order to give the US a reason to invade.

Think about it: If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat? Give me a goddamn break.

Everyone knows the Jews did WTC.
That is a load of shit, Bush may have been negligent about it(I don't know enough about it to be sure) but he did not say "HEY U A-RAB GUISE HERE R SUM PLANEZ. KRASH DEM INTO DEM TOWERZ IN NYC DEN I KAN HAS MY WOAR ON TERRAH"
See? It's fucking stupid.
Oil was probably a motivator for the invasion, but I and many other people have may the point that war is not entirely altruistic. Infact it probably never is.
So part of the reason they invaded was for oil. What about England and Northern Island, it's a country trying to still be an imperial power. Not a worthy motive imo.

Saddam was a mini fucking Stalin, good fucking ridence as far as I'm concerned.
Have you ever tried to find someone who doesn't want to be found? No, and it's highly unlikely that the US will find Osama, let alone capture him.

I don't think that the United States is an "invader" necessarily, but I can understand if Iraqi citizens feel that way

It's more of an occupation and an attempt at peace keeping. They wouldn't need to be there if they hadn't overthrown Saddam, but it's the lesser of two evils imo. Also in a war on 'terror', the US may feel obligated to remove a dictator such as Saddam.

And at the moment, there is little criticism of China's human rights record by senior US and UK politicians, and little is done about it

Countries don't tend to get involved other country's domestic affairs if it falls short of genocide. That's why no one has told the UK to leave the Irish alone.

It's more than just Iran as well. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US stationed troops in Saudi, which made Israel want more arms from the US. Then Saudi decided they wanted more as well. The middle east is extremely complicated like that.

 

[KR Skull]

The middle east is extremely complicated like that.

what are you talking about?

the middle east isn't extremely complicated. most of the countrys in thhe middle east hates war and don't like to begin the attack. but they were forced to enter the war and fight to portect there country.

most of them live by this statement

" So long as we remain loyal to our countries to the end "

 

[Erythritol]

Ridiculous? I'm afraid not. Though, perhaps "best buddies" was a little ill-chosen.
Well, at the time of the Iraq invasion, the UK was still being quite friendly with Mugabe's regime.
And at the moment, there is little criticism of China's human rights record by senior US and UK politicians, and little is done about it. Don't forget that the UK and US are also using Saudi Arabia, which has the most appaling treatment of women in the world, by bolstering its armed forces to meet those of Iran. Or that western nations have not taken action in many other situations, when they could have. No doubt, China is more complicated than most, as it has massive armed forces and an economic stranglehold on the west, but to simply not criticise... reminds one of allied appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not to mention that China appears to have strong influence over its satellite nations... namely Vietnam, North Korea, Burma, Cambodia, etc, and thus those nations are not going to face western military action any time soon.

I think that the Iraq war was neccessary, but the way evidence was exaggerated, and the lack of military intervention in similar nations, leaves something to be desired. Yet again, most wars aren't over human rights abuses. An illusion of "moral intervention" is often just used to convince the dumb masses into supporting them. It mostly works, whether a war is "neccessary" or not. Add to that, the conflict between the west and Islamic radicalism... whichever is the current downright mortal enemy or scapegoat, and you get quite the following from the masses.
You're right, the current political situation is very complicated, even confusing.

Hm, it seems to me that the Iraq War began in 2003. And well, it also seems like in 2003, Bush approved economic sanctions against Mugabe. I can't say much about the UK, because I don't know very much about UK politics. I also don't know too much about Zimbabwe, other than what is happening at the moment. However, was Mugabe violating human rights when you claim the UK was friendly with him? I don't think so. While he was never a beacon for democracy or acceptance, this violence seems like a relatively new development. You can't expect leaders to predict the future.

Ah, China. First, a correction (and I have no clue where you got this idea): North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma are not satellite countries. They are their own countries, and they are not currently under China's control. Having a similar political system and being close allies is NOT the same as being a satellite nation. Okay, so, China is not what I would call a model of human rights. However, the government has not targeted a particular ethnic group and turned its weapons on its own people (as Saddam did). And I wouldn't exactly call the United States and China's relations friendly. It's tolerant, at best. They have clashed on numerous occassions, and there has been a lot of political finger pointing. I would say that the two countries need each other economically, but are not very good political allies. I would also disagree with your assessment of the political climate in Asia. It is not at all like Germany in the 1930s. China shows no aggression towards its neighboring countries (one could argue the case with Tibet, but Tibet is a whole other issue...). In fact, China is strong allies with many neighboring countries. In the 1930s, Germany was both economically devastated (China isn't) and aggressive towards neighboring states (again, China isn't). In fact, after a lot of western persuation and pressure, China is slowly becoming better in the area of human rights.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a US ally. And while they have terrible women's rights, I wouldn't equate terrible women's rights with human rights violations, at least not on the same level as what happened under Saddam. Sad to say, but you pick and choose your battles. I think Iraq had worse human rights violations.

I'm under no illusions about the Iraq War. I know that the US didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was committing crimes against humanity. It was just a very convenient (and heroic) explanation after the fact. And yes, it was so that people would be more supportive of the war. However, I do think that Islamist extremism is something that needs to be addressed (aka: stopped). I know it's wrong to denounce political ideologies, because everyone has their own opinion, but I'm going to go ahead and do it. Islamist extremism is wrong. It perverts the religion of Islam and relies heavily on violence. It contradicts itself. It's a terrible thing. I would argue that its a reaction to shitty political and social conditions in large parts of the middle east and to the failed westernization that occured in the 20s.

 

[Donald Trump]

what are you talking about?

the middle east isn't extremely complicated. most of the countrys in thhe middle east hates war and don't like to begin the attack. but they were forced to enter the war and fight to portect there country.

most of them live by this statement

" So long as we remain loyal to our countries to the end "

Pan-Arabism failed. Middle eastern countries aren't the best of friends.

Also have you heard of the Arab-Israeli conflict? It is still ongoing.
Lebanon is completely fucked. You have Marionite Christians, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims all competing for power. Not to mention Hezbollah, who aren't political, they are also part of Lebanon.

You are from Saudi, which is the Uncle Tom of middle eastern countries.

Also the middle east was, until the end of WW1, part of the Ottoman empire, so they don't have much experience of independence.

Plus you have Sunni and Shia Muslims who don't get along. Iraq for example. Furthermore Jews and Arabs don't get along.

That is an extremely simplified version, so take my word for it, it is very complicated.

Also Sino-Vietnamese relations aren't all that great, they had a war during the end of the 70s. Their relationship is better now, but I would't say that they are all that great.

 

[KR Skull]

uncle tom what are you talking about?saudi arabia is a country that thinks about the other people thay always have and thay will always think about them

 

[Donald Trump]

uncle tom what are you talking about?saudi arabia is a country that thinks about the other people thay always have and thay will always think about them

Uncle tom is an analogy.
Saudi is the most US friendly of the Arabic states.
Please spare me your 'we are so nice stuff'.
All countries are relatively selfish, don't be naive enough to presume that Saudi isn't.
That being said, they aren't exactly best buddies with the US, they(OPEC) refused to supply the US with more Oil.

 

[KR Skull]

at least it gives something it is better than some countries that always take and never give anyway i think that i am going out of the topic

 

[Erythritol]

at least it gives something it is better than some countries that always take and never give

Okay, this isn't gang up and say nasty stuff about Saudi Arabia time. I think we're just trying to point out that Saudi Arabia is by far one of the most western-friendly countries in the middle east. And while it's true that they are a large oil exporter, it's not out of the love of charity. They get BIG money for their oil.

Also, I would disagree with you that the middle east is simple. It's a very complex area, which makes it extremely interesting.

 

[KR Skull]

as what i said before

If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat?

this war is just a destraction to hide something from us.

 

[Erythritol]

as what i said before

If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat?

this war is just a destraction to hide something from us.

Oh boy. Okay, the Iraq War was not a retaliation for the 9/11 attack. The United States, after 9/11, sent troops to Afghanistan (and bombed Afghanistan) and drove the Taliban out of power. I would say that was the reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It's not surprising that the United States is unable to locate Osama bin Laden. The man has a vast and complex underground social/political network and millions of dollars at his disposal. Additionally, the caves that the government believes he is hiding in are almost inaccessible to the US army. That said, what if the United States DOES capture him? So what? Does that mean Al Qaeda is just going to disappear? Of course not. Someone else will take his place.

Saddam Hussein, actually, was in the American press long before 9/11. I remember being in grade school and hearing about UN inspectors going to Iraq to look for WMDs. And Saddam most definitely liked to pretend that he had them, which was a terrible political miscalculation. I'm not quite sure I follow Bush's path of logic (I'm not sure ANYONE does), but I think 9/11 brought sudden attention to the middle east, and Saddam was suddenly viewed as a threat to America. Truthfully, the United States wasn't sure if he had WMDs or not. And it wasn't a gamble that Bush wanted to take, I guess. The United States had JUST been attacked, and there was a dictator who was claiming to have WMDs. Iraq was viewed as a threat to national security. Also, ignorance, I think, played a part in it. Sadly, the United States government didn't understand middle eastern politics. I remember hearing that Saddam was funding Islamist extremists (pffft....yeah okay). In any case, he was viewed as a potential threat that needed to be taken out.

The Iraq war isn't a cover for anything. Please spare us the weird conspiracy theory. It all boils down to the fact that Bush is incompetant and ignorant of middle eastern politics and history.

 

[Soul Saver]

Hm, it seems to me that the Iraq War began in 2003. And well, it also seems like in 2003, Bush approved economic sanctions against Mugabe. I can't say much about the UK, because I don't know very much about UK politics. I also don't know too much about Zimbabwe, other than what is happening at the moment. However, was Mugabe violating human rights when you claim the UK was friendly with him? I don't think so. While he was never a beacon for democracy or acceptance, this violence seems like a relatively new development. You can't expect leaders to predict the future.

Ah, China. First, a correction (and I have no clue where you got this idea): North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma are not satellite countries. They are their own countries, and they are not currently under China's control. Having a similar political system and being close allies is NOT the same as being a satellite nation. Okay, so, China is not what I would call a model of human rights. However, the government has not targeted a particular ethnic group and turned its weapons on its own people (as Saddam did). And I wouldn't exactly call the United States and China's relations friendly. It's tolerant, at best. They have clashed on numerous occassions, and there has been a lot of political finger pointing. I would say that the two countries need each other economically, but are not very good political allies. I would also disagree with your assessment of the political climate in Asia. It is not at all like Germany in the 1930s. China shows no aggression towards its neighboring countries (one could argue the case with Tibet, but Tibet is a whole other issue...). In fact, China is strong allies with many neighboring countries. In the 1930s, Germany was both economically devastated (China isn't) and aggressive towards neighboring states (again, China isn't). In fact, after a lot of western persuation and pressure, China is slowly becoming better in the area of human rights.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a US ally. And while they have terrible women's rights, I wouldn't equate terrible women's rights with human rights violations, at least not on the same level as what happened under Saddam. Sad to say, but you pick and choose your battles. I think Iraq had worse human rights violations.

I'm under no illusions about the Iraq War. I know that the US didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was committing crimes against humanity. It was just a very convenient (and heroic) explanation after the fact. And yes, it was so that people would be more supportive of the war. However, I do think that Islamist extremism is something that needs to be addressed (aka: stopped). I know it's wrong to denounce political ideologies, because everyone has their own opinion, but I'm going to go ahead and do it. Islamist extremism is wrong. It perverts the religion of Islam and relies heavily on violence. It contradicts itself. It's a terrible thing. I would argue that its a reaction to shitty political and social conditions in large parts of the middle east and to the failed westernization that occured in the 20s.

Mugabe was known to be committing human rights violations, by 2003, though not as badly as he is now. Again, I was probably wrong about the satellite nation thing, but my point was that they are all under alot of Chinese influence, and, for the most part, dealing with them means dealing with China too. If China wants to push them about, it has the political clout to do so, and western military intervention in any of those countries without China's approval could mean World War III. That said, it doesn't seem to be using much of that might either way, except of course in Tibet, which it has annexed as part of its territory. True, however, that the situation in China is improving gradually.

And I wasn't thinking that you were under any illusions, that point just had to be made, that most wars are not actually on moral grounds, that "moral intervention" is just used as an excuse in most cases.

Also, I agree completely with Islamic extremism being wrong. Islam, a supposedly peaceful religion, is at odds with fundamentalists and extremists (not neccessarily the same thing), who take things too far, go to extremes, and advocate religious violence, hatred, and sharia law, in contrary to modern values. However, the majority of peaceful muslims suffer because of the actions of certain factions. For the record, I have nothing against Islam or any other major religions.
I think what is wrong is that Islam and "terrorism" have both become related scapegoats. However, again, that's just how things are.

I think that a major war is not far off, but one can only speculate at the possibilities.

 

[KR Skull]

I think that the iraq war is a mark of a begining of a new era. This new era isn't about being smart. it is about being stronge.

 

[Erythritol]

I think that the iraq war is a mark of a begining of a new era. This new era isn't about being smart. it is about being stronge.

As entertaining as one liners in the 'forum for serious discussions' are, maybe you should elaborate on your thoughts. Or, y'know, support them somewhat.

I don't see how this is a "new era" at all. It's just another war, quite honestly. This western civilization vs eastern civilization battle has been raging for centuries. It's just an example of how realism is the dominant international theory-- and has been for hundreds of years. A state is threatened by another state, and to protect its security, it wages war. Also, following the theory of relative gains, the United States wants to ensure that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. This is all very textbook; nothing at all different or new about it.

What does intelligence or strength have to do with anything?