M
MikeWM
Guest
Deus Vult:
Mike
Yeah, that’ll be about the time we were supporting and arming Saddam Hussein.
Mike
- Status
T
thestickman
Guest
Actually that came later during the Iraq-Iraq wars. Of course it has nothing to do with this thread or discussion, but needed to be stated
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
We tried being his friend. Didn’t work.
We tried kicking him out of Kuwait. Didn’t change his habits.
We tried economic sanctions. Didn’t work – but made some crooked UN officials and some Germans and Frenchmen a lot of money.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, the Iraq-Iran war was 1980-88, but the explicit help from the US wasn’t until 1982, agreed.Actually that came later during the Iraq-Iraq wars. Of course it has nothing to do with this thread or discussion, but needed to be stated
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
Indeed. You should be careful who you make friends with. Better yet, you should be careful who you arm, in case you change their mind about them later.
Well, that’s debatable. He didn’t and/or couldn’t invade anywhere else afterwards.
And hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died. Yep, agreed that that was a bad plan.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Maybe we should have a Secretary of Fortune Telling.
As Chamberlain thought about Hitler.
Saddam maintained large armed forces, and shot at our aricraft regularly. He used money obtained through bribes to UN officials to purchase more arms.
So, having tried three methods to deal with him, and all failing one way or another – what would you suggest we should have done?
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
I can’t get into Saddam’s mind and determine if he was going to invade anywhere else any more than anyone else can.
I take the Chamberlain comparison - but Germany hadn’t recently been comprehensively trounced by English forces. Saddam knew to enter into a war with the US would be effective suicide, and we knew that he knew that.
Mike
Maybe. Or maybe we should have carefully control over who we sell arms to, not just because we like the other guy even less.
Now you’re the one fortune telling
I can’t get into Saddam’s mind and determine if he was going to invade anywhere else any more than anyone else can.I take the Chamberlain comparison - but Germany hadn’t recently been comprehensively trounced by English forces. Saddam knew to enter into a war with the US would be effective suicide, and we knew that he knew that.
I don’t see they were failing especially. Saddam was contained and wasn’t doing anything.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How do you propose we do that?
As Winston Churchill said when he was attacked for allying with the Russians in WWII, “If Herr Hitler invaded Hell, I would get up in front of the House of Commons and put in a good word for the devil.”
There are more speeds than stop and full ahead.Now you’re the one fortune telling
When a dictator invades his neighbors not once but twice. When he consistently violates the terms of the truce. When he builds up his armed forces when his people are starving – do you think he’s planning something GOOD?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Germany HAD been trounced by the Allies about 20 years before, and Chamberlain knew he was building up his armed forces.
Contained? With what’s leaking out in the oil-for-food scandal and the evidence of support for international terrorism?
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
As for support of international terrorism - well, I think it fair to say that is a controversial point, at the very least.
Mike
Well, maybe it is a shocking idea, but if neither guy is especially nice maybe just don’t sell either of them weapons? There isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy.
Not especially, no. But the pre-emptive war ground has no doubt been gone over a billion times already here, and I’m sure we know each other’s opinions already.
Yes, but things had changed in a massive number of ways between 1918 and 1938. Frankly, not much at all had changed in Iraq between 1991 and 2002,
The oil-for-food is about corruption, not invading people.
As for support of international terrorism - well, I think it fair to say that is a controversial point, at the very least.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Good thing Churchill saw things differently in WWII.
How long could we afford to let him ignore the truce and built up his armed forces?
And allowing things to rock on between 1918 and 1938 was a mistake. We didn’t care to repeat the experiment that failed.
It’s about diverting money meant for the people into building up his armed forces.
How many terrorist attacks are we supposed to sustain before we try to root terrroism out? How many nations can we tolerate who aid and support terrorism?
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
Right. Strawman though - if you choose to read ‘there isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy’ as ‘there never is a good guy and a bad guy’, then fine, but you’re not accurately representing what I’m saying.
Right. So it is important to target the right countries, not make a honeypot for even more terrorists.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
“Strawman?” As in “you invented that scenario?”
No. The Second World War actually happened.
As for bad guys and good guys, we live on a tough planet.
So you say we’ve lost this war?
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey said:
Err, no. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of strawman. When you imply I’ve said something that is nothing like what I have said, and use that to attempt to prove my point wrong, that is a strawman.
We sure do. All the more reason to be careful who we arm.
Depends. What would constitute ‘winning’ it? If deposing Saddam was the aim, we have won. If creating a better society in Iraq, we shall see. If showing Iraq had WMD to threaten people with, we have failed. If reducing international terrorism, it sure doesn’t seem like it has worked right at the moment.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A strawman is an argument erected for the purpose of being demolished. An actual historical event is not a strawman.
Now, you can argue that the anology doesn’t hold, but it isn’t fair to call it a strawman.
Again, how do you propose to do that?
And, by the way, what weapons did WE provide to Saddam that he used against us?
Wars are not debating matches – we have accomplished most of our strategic aims and are making progress on the rest. Our enemy, trying to prevent us from accompishing those aims, is failing.
G
gilliam
Guest
This shouldn’t be a question anymore. Bush made it very clear. Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq is the goal. This goal will influence the Mid East (already has) and other democracies will emerge. Stable democracies will eventually defeat terrorism.
There is a good book on this call The Pentagon’s New Map (it is written by a Catholic liberal Democrat by the way)
S
Snicker
Guest
This little flip flop that Bush did was after it became obvious that there were no WMD’s to be found. He needed to come up with SOMETHING.
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
Actually it is, because what you offered wasn’t an analogy at all. I said ‘there aren’t always’ and you offered one example back. Well, yes, but that doesn’t show ‘there aren’t always’, in the slightest.
Have strict conditions on who we sell arms to? Seems a reasonable start.
I would assume all the arms Saddam received went to the general armed forces. I somehow doubt he dogmatically threw away the weapons that originated in the US just because he was suddenly under attack by them.
What were the ‘strategic aims’ then? Overthrow Saddam? Establishing a better society? Finding WMD? Reducing international terrorism? And which of these were we told were the aims back in March 2003?
Mike
T
thestickman
Guest
This is an error of fact. The reality is, as stated in the Congressional Resolution giving Bush permission to remove Saddam by force, the US would assist the Iraqi people in setting up their own form of representitive government. This had been the offical policy of the US since the Clinton administration.
“Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;”
T
thestickman
Guest
M
MikeWM
Guest
thestickman said:
The short version of that seems to be action is allowed rto ‘uphold the UN directives’ and ‘reduce terrorism’. Is that a fair reading?
Mike
- Status