The Comprehensive case against the war in Iraq

[MJK]

I know that the war is for the most part over, although American soliders are still dying at about the rate of one per day. Here, I intend to address the three primary justifications for war in Iraq. It is my hope that this will leave little doubt as to whether or not Bush's proclaimed motives were the real ones.

Justification #1: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States.

Now that the smoke has partly cleared, it can be said with reasonable certainty the Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. None have been found ANYWHERE...and Saddam didn't use them despite the clear danger his regime was in. A threat to the United States? If Saddam didn't use them when the most powerful country in the world moved in with the clear intention to destroy his regime and knock him from power, when would he have? Answer:|He never would have even if he had them. Saddam was no idiot: he knew that using WMD's would have turned the world against him.

Justifation #2: Saddam had ties to Al-Quada.

First we heard that documents unearthed in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat , Saddam's intelligence agency, proved the link — they showed that either UBL or an emissary of his visited Saddam in 1998 to form an alliance. The Sunday Telegraph discovered those documents (why didn't an intelligence agency find them, I'm curious), as Gulf News reported on the 28th of this month.

The Times on the same day reported, however, that the "link" was in serious doubt. "British intelligence officials have expressed doubt that Saddam Hussein established any working relationship with al-Qaeda despite the discovery of [the] documents," the Times stated in its lead paragraph.

Why the doubt? Because there's zero evidence whatsoever that there were ever any follow-up meetings to the original meeting. There's zero evidence of any cooperation whatsoever. There's zero evidence that Saddam didn't say "screw you" or that UBL didn't say "screw you". Remember, if you will, that it was UBL who promised to defend Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi "infidels" in 1990. It was UBL who promised to defend the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from Saddam.

Said the Telegraph:
On the al-Qaeda link to Saddam’s regime, Britain has taken a robust line against the Americans who insist there was a connection. Washington gave the link as one of the reasons for toppling Saddam. Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) has always rejected the idea of a link.

The papers aside (since there's no evidence there was any actual cooperation), the White House is now claiming that the "fact" (really an allegation) that an al-Qaeda cell of about a dozen members was "allowed" to operate in Baghdad is evidence of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda and UBL. Bah, I say! In this case we must assume that the United States supports al-Qaeda (after all, many cells have and probably still do operate in America), that Saudi Arabia, Britain, Argentina, Pakistan and literally dozens upon dozens of other countries support al-Qaeda.

Remember that the idea of a link between Saddam and UBL comes not from traditional intelligence analysis. It comes not from detailed analysis of available information and careful conclusions drawn from that information. It comes, instead, from "hypothesis-based analysis". In other words, the intelligence community (led by none other than the Department of Defense in this initiative) came up with a thesis (that there was a UBL-Saddam link) and selected evidence to support that theory. They discarded evidence to the contrary in the interest of furthering their hypothesis — and the ultimate goal of invading Iraq.

The CIA long resisted such backwards analysis (and to a large extent still does) but was pushed into it by the White House, the Department of Defense and, to some extent, the FBI.

Justification #3: Liberating the Iraqi people
In light of the failure of the Bush administration to make a marginally compelling case for either of the first two reasons, they have turned their rhetoric towards the wonderful liberation of the Iraqi people. How nice.

It is not the role of the United States to save nations from themselves. If Saddam had invaded another nation (Kuwait, for example) and exported his tyranny to that new locale then the United States could intervene in the name of protecting the Kuwaitis from the Iraqis. But to intervene to save people from themselves? The installation of democracy is doomed to fail.

More than that, it is inconsistent. This year we are giving Uzbekistan $500 million, $79 million of which goes to Islam Karimov's security agencies. Those security agencies "makes use of electricity, beatings, rape, asphyxiation with gas masks, sexual violation with bottles and other implements and other horrific techniques" to deal with both accused common criminals and political prisoners. The Uzbek security services even boil people alive for various political offenses.

Meanwhile, the United States sends hundreds of millions of dollars to the likes of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey. Their human rights records are available from the State Department, and are not pretty.

Perhaps, just perhaps, when the United States stops supporting despots such as Islam Karimov I would be more willing to support American wars of liberation. Until that point, however, I think such wars smack of dishonesty and immorality. Four thousand Iraqis, more than 150 Anglo-American troops are dead and literally countless more Iraqis, Americans and British are injured. Our allies in "Old Europe" are alienated and international institutions like NATO have been laid to waste.

And, as thanks for their liberation, the Iraqi people are attacking American occupiers — more than a soldier per day dies, on average, in Iraq. Iraqi partisans ambush American convoys and take carefully aimed shots at American officers from carefully concealed sniper nests. And every indication is that it will only get worse.

And there you have it. Three statements, three rebuttles backed up with plenty of evidence. Decide for yourself.

[MegaFighter_X]

I really think that Bush's case for the war can be related to an X sided die.

1. He wants to look like a big badass to other countries. He wants to make an example to the smaller nations that harbor terrorists (I.E. Stereotypically the middle east.) not to screw with us, as you will be screwed with back, weither or not you are involved with the attack.

2. He wants to be an oil man. We all know there is a Shitload of money in the middle east due to "black gold." If he does this, then we can get some economic ties in there so we can kill the planet even faster than we are now.

3. He wants to get re-elected. This is a no brainer guys... He's doing this so all the right wing people will support him.

4. He wants us to ignore the falling economy at home. For the last 3 years, give or take a few months, our economy has been in a recession. More money in the pockets of the people doesn't work (Proof: Reganomics). So to get our minds off of what a crappy job he's doing with the economy, he's diverting our attention overseas. HOWEVER, as I write this, the economy just broke 9000 in the DJ. His economics may be getting somewhere. I would like to see him stabalize the economy. If he does that, I will consider him a decent president in that mannerism.

5. Maybe, just maybe, he did something good in the middle east. Although it's unlikely, it's possible something good did happen in Iraq. A tyrant was removed from his spot. I'm all for that, mind you. However, we have shown in the past we can psychologically drive people out of position. I can't remember the conflict, but it was the one in Mexico where we drove their president out with rock music. It was in the last 35-40 years, I know that. We could have tried that again. But a bullet war is easier to do that a psychological one.

6. <sarcasm>He doesn't like those filthy Towel-heads. Who needs them?</sarcasm> No, I'm no racist actually. George carlin, in one of his routines mentioned this. "Brown people? BOMB THEM! ... When's the last white people we bombed? Did we ever bomb them? The Germans. And we only bombed them because they were trying to take over the world. THAT'S OUR FUCKING JOB!" You get the idea... I dunno. This one seems rather illogical, but still true at the same time...

[MJK]

I really didn't want to start a thread where everybody posts their whole theory on the war, I just wanted to see what peoples reply was to my response to the rationalizations. Oh, and Reaganomics did work, they just made a lot of people suffer in the process. And what did you mean by the X sided die comment? I don't get it.

[FootbagginBum]

yeah, I don't get it either, good post Brian, much more comprehensive than your phone version. Enlightening and well said.

[MegaFighter_X]

I didn't know how many points I was going to make. I guess it could be 6 sided. And for how it works, roll the die, get a number. I really don't know what I'd want to belive, so I'd roll that 6 sided die to see what I wanted to belive... You know, something like that. And to be honest I believe all except the last of my points, and the second to last to a very small degree.

[MJK]

There's no question that Sadda,'s removal is a good thing, PROVIDED THAT we successfully install an independant government in Iraq, and LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING OIL.

Okay everybody, are we just sick of talking about the war? No one's posting! ..... .... ..... ...... ....... !

I'm over it.

[MegaFighter_X]

Props to you for that man. Fuck this war shit!

[President Bush]

My fellow faggoteers. This will be my farewell post to the board. As I am old, and LAME! As to all this, they are good reasons, I would even go as far as to say, "You have me.".....


IF NOT FOR THE FACT THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED UNDER DICUSSION!

Ah, another sweet victory added to my STOCKPILE OF DRIPPING CHILDRENS OILLY CARCASSSESSS!!! NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

fuckin u up, fuck fuck fuckin u up.. up up fuc.. fufufufufufufufuf
LATER

-BIZZA!

[MegaFighter_X]

This wasn't supposed to be a discussion really. it just sorta strayed into that. lol