Know War
Out of context: Reply #53
- Started
- Last post
- 96 Responses
- KuzII0
i dont remember ever defending Saddam's regime or even stating that i was "anti-war", i'm just debunking some of the misleading reasons for going to war.
1) Saddam had no capacity to make WMD's whatsoever and had none stockpiled. The war was sold to us on a bogus "45 minute" threat.
2) Saddam's regime had never given any material support to Al Qaeda - an organisation, since his invasion of Kuwait, was bent on his destruction
3) What part of my Halabja assertion is a lie? That it happened in 1988? That the US in particular turned a complete blind eye when he used chemicals warfare against Iran? That the US and other Western nations supplied him with missiles, aircraft, and other weaponary to deliver these weapons? And that base material for chemical weapons came from, amonst other countries, Germany? That the US sponsored Iraq's invasion of Iran through financial and military aid?
4) No, I was pointing out that a southern no fly zone existed to protect the Shia and Marsh Arabs (not to mention the comnplete demilitirisation of the Kurdish north) to prevent any genocidal tendencies of Saddam's regime.
5) Again, Saddam's capacity to forment a humanitarian crisis had been severly curtailed by the heavy policing of his military by the "coalition". The attacks on Kurds and Marsh Arabs occurred pre-1991. His forces existed freely only in the central Sunni district - the core of Saddam's power base.
I'm reticent about supporting wars for "humanitarian" reasons. When the Nepalese King was butchering his own people recently, it was right we stayed out. With the all out genocide underway in Darfur, it is right that the world should act. From experience, i see that nations only want to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons, when it suits their geopolitical purpose. The British used the same excuse when they "intervened" in the 19th century. Before you knew it, a third of the world was under the European hegemon.
Rightly or wrongly, the war in Iraq was fought for other geopolitical/geostrategic reasons. Controlling oil supplies; security for Israel; flexing of US muscle; creating another, more pliable US friendly barrier to Iran; a grander scheme for withdrawing US troopes from Saudi Arabia, and yes, even forcing "good" governance on the Middle East etc. etc.. From a geostrategic point of view, the case for war was compelling.
What I don't understand, is that a proto-Fascist like you, Cactus, would normally openly declare the validity of going to war purely for geopolitical reasons, at least when it comes to a poor, corrupt nation such as Iraq. Why do your kind continue to hide behind the defunkt WMD/Terrorist/Humanitarian reasons?
Maybe cos you realise, from the unprecedented worldwide reaction against the war, that the traditional "war of imperialism" is not a pill people are willing to swallow?
(ps, i can't ever remember having argued about Iraq with you or anyone. Iran, Danish Cartoons, Muslim immigration, Paris riots, and other anti-Islamic baiting from you - but never about Iraq. I dont usually get into the anti-war ranting and raving on here, since, in the beginning, i was all for it).