Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the justification for the war in Iraq and the motivations behind it. While some argue that Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship and failure to disarm as per UN resolutions are reason enough for the war, others believe that it is driven by ulterior motives such as securing oil and projecting imperialistic might. The conversation also touches on the role of other world powers, particularly France, in the conflict and the potential consequences of the war.
  • #141
Originally posted by Alias
Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to an accusation like that. But I'll try to 'in kind'.

I think you're a big dummy??!?

no, i think you propogate fear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Maybe we are all wrong.

Maybe what the Bush administration is trying to do is change the fundamental cause of terrorism in the middle east.

You could say that they are attempting to do this by converting one of the potentially wealthiest countries in the region to a democracy, hoping that the domino effect will take care of many of the others.

When Arabs are allowed to be in charge of their own destiny, maybe they won't have a reason to be angry.
 
  • #143
Originally posted by damgo
Russ, Alias, anyone, do you guys truly believe Saddam is in bed with Islamist terrorists? It's a classic example of the Big Lie...
damgo, this isn't a belief, this is well established FACT we are talking about here. The thin link is when you (we) specifically talk about Bin Laden being in bed with Saddam. But Saddam has for YEARS provided monetary awards for the families of islamic terrorists in Israel and actively supported the efforts of the terrorists. He is currently specifically invoking "jihad" on the US - appealing to islamic terrorists to come to his aid.

Northern Iraq. The Ansar al-Islam camp was in PUK territory, de facto Kurdistan; Iraq hasn't had control of that area since 1991.
So a dictator isn't in complete control of (and/or not responsible for) what goes on in his country? You really believe that?
 
  • #144
Alias: now that's an argument! :) The Bush Adminstration is certainly a fan of that 'reverse domino' theory of spreading democracy in the Middle East, though personally I think it's going to be as erroneous as the original.

Another point is that installing a friendly government in Iraq will allow the USA to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia; that will go a good ways towards reducing terrorism, as US troops in Saudi/the Middle East is their #1 complaint.

russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Example: before 9/11, the USA gave millions in aid to the Taliban to reward them for dramatically slashing opium manufacturing. Does that mean we supported what the Taliban stood for? Of course not.

Giving money to (dead) Palestinian terrorists' families is an easy way for Saddam to gain political capital in the Arab world without actually aiding the terrorists themselves. The mullahs and Islamists despise Saddam, almost as much as they did the Shaw...

re: jihad. Yes, of course he appeals to religion. Have you listened to Bush's speeches recently? "There will be a day of reckoning", "God is not neutral in this conflict," and so forth. They often sound oddly similar...

re: Northern Iraq. Yes! It's his country in name only, that's what I'm saying. :smile: There is even a well-defined bloody border marked on many recent maps: on one side are the Iraqi lines, on the other are the Kurdish militias' (PUK/KDP) lines. Check out: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Originally posted by damgo
russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism.
Damgo, that's a self-contradictory statement. Supporting terrorism is not supporting terrorism? Those payments saddam made were a REWARD for TERRORISM. It doesn't get any more cut and dried than that.
 
  • #146
^^^ Eh, that's just semantics. :) (I see what you mean about haisplitting :wink: )

Analogy: The USA (until recently) gave lots of food aid to North Korea, thus freeing them up to spend more on their military w/o having their people starve. This doesn't mean that the USA was trying to reward NK, or supported North Korea. It means rather that they didn't feel the NK people should suffer because of their government's policies. Similarly, giving aid to the families of suicide bombers could be taken to mean not that you support terrorism, but that you don't feel families should suffer (their homes are usuallly bulldozed, and the wage earner is gone) because of one of the family's choice.

Are their deep issues here about what is a legitimate act and to what extent family members are responsible for each other? Hell yeah... but it's not cut-and-dried.


Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely! I doubt he gives a damn about those families. But playing up to them is a good way to gain support on the Arab street; and hypocritical politican that he is, Saddam "feels their pain."
 
  • #147
Originally posted by damgo
^^^ Eh, that's just semantics. :)...
Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely!
Wait, you went to all that trouble to prove its a question of semantics, then contradict your own hypothetical? Now I seriously am confused.

You *DO* believe that Saddam supports the families of the terrorists to reward them for their terrorism, (not for some altruistic aid to people who have lost something) right? Hasn't he said that explicitly?

Motivation is not a question of semantics. Motivation is EVERYTHING here. Certainly people attempt to muddy the waters with contradicting statements on their own motivation - our (Bush's) motivation for fighting this war is a great example. Saddm Hussein on the other hand has been quite explicit and consistent as to what his motivation is for his actions.
 
  • #148
^^^ The semantics line was tongue-in-cheek. Damn this non-emotion-conducting Internet!

I believe Saddam supports families of terrorists for selfish political reasons, yeah. Like I said, I have no doubt he's a scumbag. The point I've been making is that the Islamists hate his guts, too; he's not likely to give them much aid (say chem weapons), when they could use it against him far easier than they could use them against the USA.
 
  • #149
Would you say that the world would be in more peril if Saddam had WMDs, than if the Pope had them?
 
  • #150
Originally posted by damgo
^^^ The semantics line was tongue-in-cheek. Damn this non-emotion-conducting Internet!
Oops, I get it - I should have picked up on it.
 
  • #151
Would you say that the world would be in more peril if Saddam had WMDs, than if the Pope had them?
Hmmm, I don't kwow, that's a really tough one... would you say that the world would be worse-off if Kim Jong Il had WMDs, or if the Care Bears did? :)
 
  • #152
Originally posted by damgo
Hmmm, I don't kwow, that's a really tough one... would you say that the world would be worse-off if Kim Jong Il had WMDs, or if the Care Bears did? :)

Well Kim Jong Il's got'em. But I'll be damned if I let those evil Care Bears upset the balance of power! Death to the butal dictator Care Bears! I think I'll issue a fahtwah.
 
  • #153
De-cide

Originally posted by Alais

(snip)I think I'll issue a fahtwah.(snip)

Alais, you can do it in the name of the Sunni's,(the former ruling class of Iraq) as they are now the last people defending Baghdad, and to 'Win the War', all George needs to do, is, "Kill them All".

Isn't there another name for that?

BTW Alais, the solution(s) are/was/were, to end the war, now, bring the Boys back home where they are safe, sign a Peace Treaty with the people that are left whom have not yet been slain/murdered.

That I had suggested, well before, this war started.

Blessed are the Peace Makers....J.C.
 
  • #154
I disagree with your solution, although I'm quite happy you stated it. I wish we could get that much from Zero.

I think a better solution would be to continue to make war on all of those that oppose the removal of Saddam's regime. Make no mistake, they know what they are in for, and can surrender at any time. If they continue to fight, their deaths will be their own doing.

Of course, for those being forced to fight, I pray for them.
 
  • #155
Hmmm...another personal attack, Alias?

Certainly, murdering anyone who might ever interfere with U.S interests is a brilliant strategy...get that from a G.I. Joe comic book?
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...another personal attack, Alias?

No, just some playful ribbing. I miss you in this thread. It's my pathetic attempt to get your attention.

Certainly, murdering anyone who might ever interfere with U.S interests is a brilliant strategy...get that from a G.I. Joe comic book?
That's not what I said, or meant, and you know it. I think you actually kind of like me. I think you've got this love/hate thing going for me, no?

Seriously, don't you think that ultimately, when the dust settles, the Iraqi people will be better off running their own country?

And why is it you can't see my compassion, even when I lay it out right in front of you? Please re-read my last post.
 
  • #157
Originally posted by Alias
I disagree with your solution, although I'm quite happy you stated it. I wish we could get that much from Zero.

I think a better solution would be to continue to make war on all of those that oppose the removal of Saddam's regime. Make no mistake, they know what they are in for, and can surrender at any time. If they continue to fight, their deaths will be their own doing.

Of course, for those being forced to fight, I pray for them.

Must admit alias, you are good with that party line
 
  • #158
um..thank you?
 
  • #159
This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two-week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper/TV is putting out.)

* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever

* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

* An interim constitution has been signed.

* Girls are allowed to attend school.

* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about, but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion
 
  • #160
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
Alais, you can do it in the name of the Sunni's,(the former ruling class of Iraq) as they are now the last people defending Baghdad, and to 'Win the War', all George needs to do, is, "Kill them All".

Isn't there another name for that?

BTW Alais, the solution(s) are/was/were, to end the war, now, bring the Boys back home where they are safe, sign a Peace Treaty with the people that are left whom have not yet been slain/murdered.

That I had suggested, well before, this war started.

Blessed are the Peace Makers....J.C.

Who remembers the days of the VIETNAM WAR?
 
  • #161
Werdatothewise said:
Who remembers the days of the VIETNAM WAR?
John Kerry? Sure.
GW Bush: I doubt.
 
  • #162
IRAQ: BEFORE AND AFTER SANCTIONS

Hospital beds:
Before sanctions: 1.9/100
After sanctions: 1.4/100

Life expectancy:
Before sanctions: 65 years
After sanctions: 59 years

Infant mortality:
Before sanctions: 80/1000
After sanctions: 104/1000

Adult literacy rate:
Before sanctions: 89%
After sanctions: 58%

Student enrollment:
Before sanctions:
Primary School: 99%
Secondary School: 47%
Number of School Buildings: 9460
After sanctions:
Primary School: 80%
Secondary School: 31%
Number of School Buildings: 7572

Education status:
Before sanctions: Public education was free and compulsory at all levels.
After sanctions: UNICEF estimated that only 10% of Iraq's needs for education could be met by the Oil for Food Programme.

Calory intake:
Before sanctions: 3400 calories per day (The highest in the region at that time)
Two thirds of Iraq's food was imported.
After sanctions: 2268 calories per day
94% of the FAO recommended minimum requirement

Undernourishment:
Before sanctions: 4%
After sanctions: 27%

Access to safe water:
Before sanctions:
Urban: 100%
Rural: 72%
After sanctions:
Urban: 85%
Rural: 48%

Access to sanitation:
Before sanctions:
Urban: 96%
Rural: 18%
After sanctions:
Urban: 79%
Rural: 31%

Electricity

Production:
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: KWh27.3 billion

Consumption
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: KWh25.389 billion

Telephone lines in use:
Before sanctions: 462,000
After sanctions: 675,000

Internet service provider
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: One ISP for 12,500 users

Television & radio
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: 13 TV broadcast stations, 3 radio stations

(Sources: FAO/UNESCO/WHO/World Bank Data.)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/34695329-3D30-406E-BFDE-3E44899B7730.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #163
So Adam, you agree that this war brought forth some good: the end of sanctions which crippled the country?
 
  • #164
that is like saying the hurricane brought some good becuase it ended the drought.
 
  • #165
kyleb said:
that is like saying the hurricane brought some good becuase it ended the drought.


If the hurricane costs less lives than the indefinite drought, then yes it did some good.
 
  • #166
studentx said:
So Adam, you agree that this war brought forth some good: the end of sanctions which crippled the country?

1) X causes all sorts of problems through sanctions and such, for Y.
2) X invades Y, destroys all basic infrastructure, kills lots of people, and ends those sanctions.
3) Some idiot thinks X's invasion is good because the sanctions (caused by X) are over.

I have recommended to you before that you should simply stay out of these conversations.
 
  • #167
Adam said:
1) X causes all sorts of problems through sanctions and such, for Y.
2) X invades Y, destroys all basic infrastructure, kills lots of people, and ends those sanctions.
3) Some idiot thinks X's invasion is good because the sanctions (caused by X) are over.

I have recommended to you before that you should simply stay out of these conversations.

I contemplated your recommendations but i had to put them aside :zzz: When the truth gets assaulted its my duty to protect it.
X imposes the sanctions and X invades Iraq? Last time i checked, the UN didnt invade Iraq.

Do you dispute the fact that sanctions would not have been lifted while Saddam was in power?
 
  • #168
To say that the war was good because it ended the sanctions is just like saying that if the Holocaust had been 100% successful it would have been good because it would have stopped the Nazis from persecuting the Jews.
 
  • #169
strawman Pyrovus
 
  • #170
The campaign against Iraq was always driven by the USA.

And no, Pyrovus's analogy was not a straw man argument.
 
  • #171
the jews did nothing to deserve persecution, had no leader that led them to hell. Saddam killed thousands of kuweitis, tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of iranians and millions of iraqis. Once again Adam i have made recommendations not to attack the truth, or i will have to protect it.
 
  • #172
studentx said:
the jews did nothing to deserve persecution, had no leader that led them to hell. Saddam killed thousands of kuweitis, tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of iranians and millions of iraqis. Once again Adam i have made recommendations not to attack the truth, or i will have to protect it.

Really? Wow. How interesting. Perhaps you could tell us what you base these assertions on?
 
  • #173
alright, which assertions do i need to clarify for you !
 
  • #174
Where did Saddam get the weapons and materials to kill all those people? Which administrations were in charge? What were their policies regarding Saddam? (while supplying WMD and techonolgy for building WMD.)
 
  • #175
America, Russia, France, Germany, China.
Now, we are talking about the strawman Amp.
American troops are not nazis persecuting Iraqis and the invasion of Iraq was not the holocaust. If you have any love for the truth you should crush this strawman
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
67K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
932
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Back
Top