Do you agree with Hitchens' on the Iraq War?

[vjohn82]

What do I think? I think that America's actions in no way "set in motion" anything of the sort. We took out Saddam, the Muslims took that opportunity to oppress Christians, so it is they who "set in motion" those events.

Have to agree.

[Seth]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

Now, if we can only get the fuckwits to bomb Iran again we can keep them at each other's throats for a good long while I think. It was what, a decade or more last time? And during that time they were all too busy wiping their asses with the bones of martyrs in the desert as they killed one another to bother anybody else.

[mistermack]

Libya, the so-called just war under Obama and the European allies, was fought on the pretext that Qaddafi MIGHT kill some civilians, and yet I can't seem to find a single person who opposed the Iraq War who also opposes the Libyan War. To me, I find that irreconcilable. I can't see how anyone can oppose the Iraq War, but support the Libyan War.

That's your problem. You have trouble seeing the bleedin obvious.
The Libyan war was SUPPORTED on that pretext, not fought.
It was fought by Libyan people against a dictator. If you can't see the difference between that, and the Iraq war, you can see fuck-all, except what you want to see.

[Coito ergo sum]

Libya, the so-called just war under Obama and the European allies, was fought on the pretext that Qaddafi MIGHT kill some civilians, and yet I can't seem to find a single person who opposed the Iraq War who also opposes the Libyan War. To me, I find that irreconcilable. I can't see how anyone can oppose the Iraq War, but support the Libyan War.

That's your problem. You have trouble seeing the bleedin obvious.

I don't think so.

The Libyan war was SUPPORTED on that pretext, not fought.

Both the support for the war, and the pretext for fighting the war, was because Qadafi might kill civilians.

It was fought by Libyan people against a dictator.

So was the opposition against Hussein.

If you can't see the difference between that, and the Iraq war, you can see fuck-all, except what you want to see.

If you disregard the opposition to Saddam Hussein, then you obviously just whatever fits your own preconceived notion. To pretend that there was no opposition in Iraq to the rule of Saddam Hussein is to ignore the body count.

The fact is, you are either ignorant of the anti-Hussein opposition forces in Iraq, or opposition to Saddam Hussein wasn't important to you when it came to the war in Iraq. It's the latter view that is prevalent. Most people knew full well that plenty of people opposed Saddam Hussein - the Shia in the south fought against him, and were massacred by him, and the Kurds in the north had the same thing happen to them. And, they were ACTUALLY massacred, and it wasn't just the potentiality of a possible massacre.

Your silly suggestion that the difference is that there was an opposition force in Libya, but not one in Iraq, is amazing. I'm surprised you'd even make that suggestion, and couple it with insults to me personally? As if I only see what I want to see? Coming from you? Wow. Just...wow.

[mistermack]

Nearly every country has an opposition. To claim that that makes Iraq and Libya equivalent is ridiculous.

That is illustration enough that my comment about seeing what you want to see is entirely accurate.

The Libyan civil war started within Libya. It was fought on the ground by Libyans. It would never have succeeded without huge Libyan participation by ordinary people. All they got was air cover from the US and Europe.

None of that applies to Iraq and you know it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nearly every country has an opposition. To claim that that makes Iraq and Libya equivalent is ridiculous.

Yes, the opposition in Iraq fought longer and harder, and suffered far more casualties at the hands of the Hussein regime, than the opposition in Libya relative to Qadafi.

That is illustration enough that my comment about seeing what you want to see is entirely accurate.

You're talking about yourself. You see in Libya what you want to see, which is why you won't say now things like "War for Oil," and that the humanitarian reasons were mere pretexts.

The Libyan civil war started within Libya.

As did the opposition in Iraq - the Kurdish war against Hussein, and the battles by the Shia in the south against the Hussein regime.

It was fought on the ground by Libyans.

As was the opposition fighting in Iraq.

It would never have succeeded without huge Libyan participation by ordinary people. All they got was air cover from the US and Europe.

None of that applies to Iraq and you know it.

The only thing you've described is that the Hussein regime was better at slaughtering his people, and that the tyrant WON in Iraq.

By your logic, we leave successful tyrants alone, and only bomb the weak ones. Nice.