Do you agree with Hitchens' on the Iraq War?

[Ian]

Revisionist history at its most desperate. Blaming the myopic media is a particularly nice touch.

Humanitarian causes were nothing but a bonus for the Iraq invasion, a minor driver at best. The handful of Iraq War supporters hype them up nowadays as much as WMDs were hyped up in 2002/3.

It's time to stop spinning.

[Clinton Huxley]

Were humanitarian reasons the main reason for the invasion? If Iraq had not supposedly had WMDS and had not allegedly sponsored terrorism, would the US have invaded, or indeed even cared?

The evidence of the blind eye turned to murderous regimes around the globe suggests not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Revisionist history at its most desperate. Blaming the myopic media is a particularly nice touch.

It's not revisionist when I'm relying on pre-2002 information. You guys asked to see Bush announcing that humanitarian reasons were part of the reason for going in. I quoted him from a speech to the United Nations.

Obviously, speeches to the UN were among your prime contemplated pieces of evidence, since you asked me about Colin Powell's speech, and you asked me why he didn't say anything about humanitarian reasons. I explained why he didn't, AND I cited to you who did. The President. Very clearly, and at the time.

Moreover, I was making this same argument AT THE TIME of the invasion, while everyone was shouting about WMDs, I pointed out that WMDs were not the only reason to go in, and I was argued with THEN. It didn't matter THEN that I cited quotes from the President and from the Iraq War Resolution and the Iraq Liberation Act, and a host of UN Resolutions, and European Union resolutions, all pointing to the humanitarian crises. People didn't want to here it then, and they apparently still don't want to here it now - because it doesn't fit with the easy "war for oil" and "Bush lied, people died" tripe.

Humanitarian causes were nothing but a bonus for the Iraq invasion, a minor driver at best. The handful of Iraq War supporters hype them up nowadays as much as WMDs were hyped up in 2002/3.

It's time to stop spinning.

The President didn't think it was just a minor driver when he announced it with equal force at his UN speech. He listed several main reasons - two of which had to do with humanitarian reasons. Others had to do with things like Iraq trying to assassinate the President of the US, Iraq firing on coalition forces hundreds of time during the "Cease Fire" after the Persian Gulf War, Iraq being in violation of a dozen or more resolutions before the UN, etc.

I mean - I get it: if Obama was President, you folks would have supported the war, and assumed only the best of intentions. That is what happened in Libya. An oil state is attacked by western powers for the reason that Qadafi, who had been in power for 40 years already, suddenly "might" massacre his own people. And, the same people who oppose the Iraq War as a pretext for a war for oil, they just eat it up. Why? The answer is - the right guy pulled the trigger. You know it, and I know it. Had Al Gore been President in 2002, and made the same decision, you'd have supported him.

[BrettA]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

+161,109

Hussein murder 1,000,000, according to the New York Times. How many more would be enough to act?

Or, did we need it to be the "potential" that he "might" kill a few thousand...like the justification advanced for the war in Libya, and swallowed whole by almost every Iraq War opponent I know.

Ahhh... With the Brit's assisting with chemical weapon production and more, plus the Americans helping in many other ways? The point was "the West's noble humanitarian intervention" so to mention Hussein without also mentioning the West's help prior to said intervention seems disingenuous at best. Did the Times note the West's prior involvement as relates to the 1,000,000 and given ~75% of those 'murders' were the result of an Iraq war (from my understanding), was that noted as well?

[Drewish]

You need to give me more than 30 fucking seconds.

But, see above the link to the transcript of Bush's speech to the UN in 2002. I think you can find a video of it on youtube if you must have it in video form, but the transcript provides the enlightenment you seek.

It was advanced with full clarity to the United Nations as one of the reasons we wanted to act. Before the war. Clearly, and unequivocally.

The fact is - and I have been saying this for 8 years now - it is willful blindness that is the only explanation for people thinking that the only reason advanced for the war was WMD. To think that is to not having been paying attention.

Looked through thread; did not see link. And since I'm asking to be informed here, I don't think characterizing me as being willfully ignorant. Here's the text, so now that I've done your research for you while you belittle me, make your case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 1781.shtml

[Coito ergo sum]

Were humanitarian reasons the main reason for the invasion? If Iraq had not supposedly had WMDS and had not allegedly sponsored terrorism, would the US have invaded, or indeed even cared?

The evidence of the blind eye turned to murderous regimes around the globe suggests not.

No reason was actually advanced as the "main" reason. But, let's assume it wasn't? So what?

So, the "main reason" to invade Libya was "humanitarian" in that Qadaffi might kill his own people. If France also said "we have intelligence he really didn't disband his nuclear program," and advanced that first, making the humanitarian reason secondary, then the humanitarian reason would be irrelevant? Of course not. They would both be reasons.

Yes, the US cared - one of the main reasons for caring about WMDs at all, however, was the rogue nature of the country, including its sponsorship of terrorism, harboring of terrorists, and willingness to engage in mass slaughter. Those are issues that go hand-in-hand to make Iraq one of the most important issues at the time.

Would the US ONLY have gone in if it was a humanitarian reason at issue in 2003. Doubtful. There was a humanitarian crisis in 1991, and the US acceded to the UN's demand and limitation on the UN resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War, and left Hussein in power. For the US to have ousted Hussein, it would have had to act beyond the authority in the Persian Gulf resolution.

Moreover, PURELY human rights issues, humanitarian issues, until the last few years, were not universally seen as justifications for war. It wasn't in Kosovo, for example. The Serbian aggression was the cause - mere humanitarian crises alone were not sufficient to justify war. It's only now, in the post Bush years, that we get this sort of assumed "Oh, humanitarian crisis in Libya, that's reason for invasion" -- it's like, for some reason now, after Iraq, what was a subject of strong debate 10 years ago, is now just assumed to be, like, the main reason for intervention. And, not only that, we can have precious little evidence of any actual humanitarian crisis happening. We can just announce "he might kill his people," and that's good enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

You need to give me more than 30 fucking seconds.

But, see above the link to the transcript of Bush's speech to the UN in 2002. I think you can find a video of it on youtube if you must have it in video form, but the transcript provides the enlightenment you seek.

It was advanced with full clarity to the United Nations as one of the reasons we wanted to act. Before the war. Clearly, and unequivocally.

The fact is - and I have been saying this for 8 years now - it is willful blindness that is the only explanation for people thinking that the only reason advanced for the war was WMD. To think that is to not having been paying attention.

Looked through thread; did not see link. And since I'm asking to be informed here, I don't think characterizing me as being willfully ignorant. Here's the text, so now that I've done your research for you while you belittle me, make your case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 1781.shtml

Look - this is irritating - I posted the link here, and quoted from it: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1073011

You didn't do my research for me. I told you I posted the link in the post above. It was right above where I told you to "look above" - like a few inches of screen above.

He said it in the speech -- where he says several times "If the Iraqi regime wishes to avoid war ...." there are a few of those. I quoted two that relate to humanitarian issues. That was in 2002. It was in a speech, loud and fucking clear, to the UN. If you weren't listening, I can't help that. But, I'm not the only one who has been saying this for the last 8 years. People just refuse to count those statements as having anything to do with the reasons for the war. It's all "blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died." That drowns out the reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

+161,109

Hussein murder 1,000,000, according to the New York Times. How many more would be enough to act?

Or, did we need it to be the "potential" that he "might" kill a few thousand...like the justification advanced for the war in Libya, and swallowed whole by almost every Iraq War opponent I know.

Ahhh... With the Brit's assisting with chemical weapon production and more, plus the Americans helping in many other ways? The point was "the West's noble humanitarian intervention" so to mention Hussein without also mentioning the West's help prior to said intervention seems disingenuous at best. Did the Times note the West's prior involvement as relates to the 1,000,000 and given ~75% of those 'murders' were the result of an Iraq war (from my understanding), was that noted as well?

No, that wasn't the case that even a substantial of the 1,000,00 deaths counted were deaths in the Iraq War itself.

Moreover, the Brits and the Americans did not "assist" in Hussein committing genocidal acts on his own people. Such an allegation is too ludicrous to even bother with.

[Drewish]

You need to give me more than 30 fucking seconds.

But, see above the link to the transcript of Bush's speech to the UN in 2002. I think you can find a video of it on youtube if you must have it in video form, but the transcript provides the enlightenment you seek.

It was advanced with full clarity to the United Nations as one of the reasons we wanted to act. Before the war. Clearly, and unequivocally.

The fact is - and I have been saying this for 8 years now - it is willful blindness that is the only explanation for people thinking that the only reason advanced for the war was WMD. To think that is to not having been paying attention.

Looked through thread; did not see link. And since I'm asking to be informed here, I don't think characterizing me as being willfully ignorant. Here's the text, so now that I've done your research for you while you belittle me, make your case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 1781.shtml

That wasn't a link (url tags and such) so it's no wonder I did't see it. I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, but you keep ascribing this whole back story of what my position must be, which makes it impossible. I'll just step away for a bit and come back later. hopefully things won't be so combative then.
Look - this is irritating - I posted the link here, and quoted from it: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1073011

You didn't do my research for me. I told you I posted the link in the post above. It was right above where I told you to "look above" - like a few inches of screen above.

He said it in the speech -- where he says several times "If the Iraqi regime wishes to avoid war ...." there are a few of those. I quoted two that relate to humanitarian issues. That was in 2002. It was in a speech, loud and fucking clear, to the UN. If you weren't listening, I can't help that. But, I'm not the only one who has been saying this for the last 8 years. People just refuse to count those statements as having anything to do with the reasons for the war. It's all "blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died." That drowns out the reality.

[BrettA]

+161,109

Hussein murder 1,000,000, according to the New York Times. How many more would be enough to act?

Or, did we need it to be the "potential" that he "might" kill a few thousand...like the justification advanced for the war in Libya, and swallowed whole by almost every Iraq War opponent I know.

Ahhh... With the Brit's assisting with chemical weapon production and more, plus the Americans helping in many other ways? The point was "the West's noble humanitarian intervention" so to mention Hussein without also mentioning the West's help prior to said intervention seems disingenuous at best. Did the Times note the West's prior involvement as relates to the 1,000,000 and given ~75% of those 'murders' were the result of an Iraq war (from my understanding), was that noted as well?

No, that wasn't the case that even a substantial of the 1,000,00 deaths counted were deaths in the Iraq War itself.

Moreover, the Brits and the Americans did not "assist" in Hussein committing genocidal acts on his own people. Such an allegation is too ludicrous to even bother with.

So ~1M deaths are "genocidal acts on his own people" alone? If that's what you're claiming, could you provide a link, please?

And please... I didn't say "assist in Hussein committing genocidal acts on his own people" - and nice, ludicrous diversion attempt - but are you thinking that the Brits never assisted with chemical weapon production or that say, without US arms, dollars, support and more that he would have been even remotely as capable in committing genocide (and everything else he did)?

[Tyrannical]

We should have tried Saddam for war crimes after Desert Storm back in '91.
Bush Sr. was naive to think Saddam would change or be overthrown, but Clinton was derelict for eight years.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We should have tried Saddam for war crimes after Desert Storm back in '91.
Bush Sr. was naive to think Saddam would change or be overthrown, but Clinton was derelict for eight years.

The Saudi's didn't want Iraq weakened back then for fear that Iran would swoop on the broken pieces. This is why Swartzkopf was reined in when he was.

[Ian]

I mean - I get it: if Obama was President, you folks would have supported the war, and assumed only the best of intentions. That is what happened in Libya. An oil state is attacked by western powers for the reason that Qadafi, who had been in power for 40 years already, suddenly "might" massacre his own people. And, the same people who oppose the Iraq War as a pretext for a war for oil, they just eat it up. Why? The answer is - the right guy pulled the trigger. You know it, and I know it. Had Al Gore been President in 2002, and made the same decision, you'd have supported him.

Oh please. What utter pablum.

Stop comparing Iraq to Libya. They could hardly be more different, and you're only making yourself look more foolish. And saying that we'd blindly support Obama or Gore if one of them had been the one to launch the war doesn't make any sense at all. Had one of those two been President in 2003, do you think there even would've been an Iraq War? Not a chance in hell. Afghanistan yes, but not Iraq.

Because you keep trying to use that bullshit strawman, I'm going to assume that it's merely a defense mechanism on your part. You see a successful, warranted, internationally-supported intervention in Libya happening on Obama's watch (and it could very well have happened on Bush's watch with my support, btw) with some popular domestic support, and assume that this support is only because of who's in office at the time. Conversely, you're assuming that opposition to the Iraq War is only a reflection of what people (specifically, Democrats) now think of GW Bush. Total crap. Bush's approval ratings plummeted long before the economy went into the toilet, and it was largely because he was responsible for such an ill-considered, reckless waste of a war. Similarly, the Democrats didn't give unconditional support to LBJ as Vietnam dragged on; hell, he became so unpopular with the left that he didn't even bother running again.

People look at the war, then judge the President, not the other way around. Your assumptions of a "party first" mentality is just plain wrong, and I'm going to believe that this is what you're assuming because it's just a reflection of your own mentality.

[Coito ergo sum]

+161,109

Hussein murder 1,000,000, according to the New York Times. How many more would be enough to act?

Or, did we need it to be the "potential" that he "might" kill a few thousand...like the justification advanced for the war in Libya, and swallowed whole by almost every Iraq War opponent I know.

Ahhh... With the Brit's assisting with chemical weapon production and more, plus the Americans helping in many other ways? The point was "the West's noble humanitarian intervention" so to mention Hussein without also mentioning the West's help prior to said intervention seems disingenuous at best. Did the Times note the West's prior involvement as relates to the 1,000,000 and given ~75% of those 'murders' were the result of an Iraq war (from my understanding), was that noted as well?

No, that wasn't the case that even a substantial of the 1,000,00 deaths counted were deaths in the Iraq War itself.

Moreover, the Brits and the Americans did not "assist" in Hussein committing genocidal acts on his own people. Such an allegation is too ludicrous to even bother with.

So ~1M deaths are "genocidal acts on his own people" alone? If that's what you're claiming, could you provide a link, please?

I'll try to find it again.

[

And please... I didn't say "assist in Hussein committing genocidal acts on his own people" - and nice, ludicrous diversion attempt - but are you thinking that the Brits never assisted with chemical weapon production or that say, without US arms, dollars, support and more that he would have been even remotely as capable in committing genocide (and everything else he did)?

US arms sales to Iraq?

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html

Yes, I think Iraq would've been about the same without the US's contribution. UK was even less.

The whole myth of how "we" armed Iraq only really applies if the "we" is the USSR/Russia, France and China.

[Coito ergo sum]

I mean - I get it: if Obama was President, you folks would have supported the war, and assumed only the best of intentions. That is what happened in Libya. An oil state is attacked by western powers for the reason that Qadafi, who had been in power for 40 years already, suddenly "might" massacre his own people. And, the same people who oppose the Iraq War as a pretext for a war for oil, they just eat it up. Why? The answer is - the right guy pulled the trigger. You know it, and I know it. Had Al Gore been President in 2002, and made the same decision, you'd have supported him.

Oh please. What utter pablum.

Stop comparing Iraq to Libya. They could hardly be more different, and you're only making yourself look more foolish. And saying that we'd blindly support Obama or Gore if one of them had been the one to launch the war doesn't make any sense at all. Had one of those two been President in 2003, do you think there even would've been an Iraq War? Not a chance in hell. Afghanistan yes, but not Iraq.

Gore, yes. Obama, I'm not sure.

Yes, Libya was different than Iraq precisely because there was far less of a good reason to go into Libya than there was for Iraq (even if we just set aside issues of weapons of mass destruction altogether).

Because you keep trying to use that bullshit strawman, I'm going to assume that it's merely a defense mechanism on your part. You see a successful, warranted, internationally-supported intervention in Libya happening on Obama's watch (and it could very well have happened on Bush's watch with my support, btw) with some popular domestic support, and assume that this support is only because of who's in office at the time.

The only reason people are claiming it is warranted is because it's someone else other than Bush asserting the need. Why do people believe the notion that it's not a war of oil? Why isn't it a "war of choice?" What was the reason for the war? "Humanitarian" reasons? Really? Lay out the case.

Conversely, you're assuming that opposition to the Iraq War is only a reflection of what people (specifically, Democrats) now think of GW Bush. Total crap. Bush's approval ratings plummeted long before the economy went into the toilet, and it was largely because he was responsible for such an ill-considered, reckless waste of a war. Similarly, the Democrats didn't give unconditional support to LBJ as Vietnam dragged on; hell, he became so unpopular with the left that he didn't even bother running again.

The Democrats did support LBJ. The hippies didn't. The Democrats were not the home of the Left in 1967 and 1968. The Democrats were right wing hawks, which is why the Vietnam War was started by Democrats in the first place and it is why most Democrats OPPOSED the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was Democrats like Byrd and his ilk that opposed desegregation. The Democratic party then bears no resemblance to the Democratic party of today, and would not be considered a "Left" party or "the left" at all.

People look at the war, then judge the President, not the other way around. Your assumptions of a "party first" mentality is just plain wrong, and I'm going to believe that this is what you're assuming because it's just a reflection of your own mentality.

No, it's not a reflection of my own mentality, and you know it, because I have supported Obama on a variety of issues, and I supported Obama's decision on Libya. I just honestly don't see why the same people people who opposed the Iraq War, which plainly had far more humanitarian reasons for western involvement than Libya did, would not also oppose the Libyan war. I found the fact that the same people who vehemently opposed the Iraq war were quite silent on even questioning the Libyan war. Whatever reason was put forth, the mere potential of a humanitarian issue, was deemed sufficient. Go on in! Sounds good to us!

No sneers of...."Oh, I don't know...maybe because Libya has ....oil..." with a knowing tone... why not? Libya does have oil. Did we go there to steal it? People STILL voice that same canard about the Iraq War, that we only when there to "steal the oil." I can't be the only one who notices that nobody says that shit about the LIbyan War.