was going to Iraq a good idea?

[Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?]

Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?

yes

 6 (54.5%)

no

 5 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[fortook]

Ok, Time is fluid, not static? What does that mean?  Are we still at war with Great Britain?  If so, is France gonna be our new b.itch?  How long does it take to become static?

I think I see our major disconnect.  Morality is a legitimate relational for extreme action for you.  It is not for me.  If anything, anything in all of human existence is fluid rather than static it is morality.  Consequently, using morality as a justification for an action as strong as war, i.e. killing people, changes drastically based on who and when.  An awareness of the varying morality of other people is necessary in order to live with them, rather than everyone killing each other.  All summed up in one word: respect.

Ok, you don't like these people.  Please don't kill them.  Ok, you don't like this dude (D.ouche bag or not), please don't run off and kill him.  Bush did not hurt my feelings, he pissed me off- along with most of the entire planet.  I almost cried when no European would even touch him because they were so disgusted by his behavior. Why?  Because he had no respect for anyone around him-  I do what I want, f. you.  I go where I want, f. you.  You don't like me here, f. you.  Why is Cartman a d.ick?

I would rather live with men, then kill them.  If morality, rather than blanket respect, is your motivator: You would rather kill men, then live with them- by definition (morality changes with time and place and group).

[Julie Fern]

blueidiot just like kill, so long not at risk.  (but it like play star wars.)    it just use morality defend killing.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Unfortunately in this day and age military operations are needed to take out a genocidal military tyrant...this is what we did with hitler and the nazis...this is what we did to Hussein and sons. Aye wished we did  and pray that one day we will live in an mlk world...but at the moment we don't.

By this line of justification you are placing here you have a problem with the way we took out hitler.  Is that right?

And as time is showing...and will continue to show that like hitler and the nazis...the world is better a place with them and Hussein gone....Kurds are thriving....so it wasn't the entire planet opposed.

Ok, Time is fluid, not static? What does that mean?  Are we still at war with Great Britain?  If so, is France gonna be our new b.itch?  How long does it take to become static?

I think I see our major disconnect.  Morality is a legitimate relational for extreme action for you.  It is not for me.  If anything, anything in all of human existence is fluid rather than static it is morality.  Consequently, using morality as a justification for an action as strong as war, i.e. killing people, changes drastically based on who and when.  An awareness of the varying morality of other people is necessary in order to live with them, rather than everyone killing each other.  All summed up in one word: respect.

Ok, you don't like these people.  Please don't kill them.  Ok, you don't like this dude (D.ouche bag or not), please don't run off and kill him.  Bush did not hurt my feelings, he pissed me off- along with most of the entire planet.  I almost cried when no European would even touch him because they were so disgusted by his behavior. Why?  Because he had no respect for anyone around him-  I do what I want, f. you.  I go where I want, f. you.  You don't like me here, f. you.  Why is Cartman a d.ick?

I would rather live with men, then kill them.  If morality, rather than blanket respect, is your motivator: You would rather kill men, then live with them- by definition (morality changes with time and place and group).

[fortook]

Stop the WWII comparison.  Its ridiculous and an obvious attempt to seek legitimacy.  Such a stretch, as to be totally unrelated (apples and oranges).  I don't want to hear about Hitler again in a conversation about unprovoked distant invasions justified through changing (thus false) political arguments.

Does an "mlk" world mean a "Martin Luther King world"?  If, so- WHAT!

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Let me make it simple on you.

Do you think that the Kurds in northern Iraq are better off as a community in the present day or were they better off under the rule of saddam Hussein?

Aye know you have issues with bush...so try to answer honestly.

Yes,Martin l. King is mlk...and aye'm drawing you to his eutopian endgame...which would be wonderful, btw.

Stop the WWII comparison.  Its ridiculous and an obvious attempt to seek legitimacy.  Such a stretch, as to be totally unrelated (apples and oranges).  I don't want to hear about Hitler again in a conversation about unprovoked distant invasions justified through changing (thus false) political arguments.

Does an "mlk" world mean a "Martin Luther King world"?  If, so- WHAT!

[LincolnLover]

The UN has laws, they broke UN laws. Never said American. That was an assumption.

[fortook]

Does the UN have "laws"?  Or guidelines? Where is the global court?  Where is the UN code (there actually is one, but its very very loose).

Assuming the UN does have laws (which they do not really) rather than mutual agreements, I will say this one last time.  This is getting absurd. THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ.  THE US INVADED AND CONQUERED A COUNTRY OVER FALSE PRETENSES, KILLING 100s OF 1000s OF PEOPLE.  Is that illegal under UN law or is it a case of the ape with the biggest stick? 

As to the Kurds, Blue, I'm sure they are better off.  I don't begrudge them.  But. if you want to invade every country on the planet who mistreats weaker groups you will have to invade more countries than the 7 or so we have invaded in the past decade, several of which were severe cause horrible casualties. Helping one small group who is besieged is a poor argument for such extreme measure taken by the US considering the huge numbers of mistreated groups out there.

A larger point is that helping the Kurds was an argument employed to cover the fact the original reason for invasion was a guess that turned out to be wrong, there were no WMDs in Iraq (why do I have too keep repeating this).  It was the Whitehouse's cop out argument when they figured out they f.ed up and suddenly there were 100k+ American service members in Iraq and thousands were dead.  Better than saying- "whoops", I'll give you that.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ.  THE US INVADED AND CONQUERED A COUNTRY OVER FALSE PRETENSES, KILLING 100s OF 1000s OF PEOPLE.  There were no wmds involved in other operations...eg we just went into libya...no wmds...you are hung up on that one area where you feel you were duped

As to the Kurds, Blue, I'm sure they are better off.  I don't begrudge them.  That was my point, thank you and it's not like the USA did not have interests in the Kurdish regionBut. if you want to invade every country on the planet who mistreats weaker groups you will have to invade more countries than the 7 or so we have invaded in the past decade, several of which were severe cause horrible casualties. Helping one small group who is besieged is a poor argument for such extreme measure taken by the US considering the huge numbers of mistreated groups out there. is that another scale?....it might have been nice to help out the furs in sudan...that's a big whoops.

A larger point is that helping the Kurds was an argument employed to cover the fact the original reason for invasion was a guess that turned out to be wrong, there were no WMDs in Iraq (why do I have too keep repeating this).History will forget that this was the "cover" for continuing operations after Clinton was unsuccessful..because many smart people believe that we weren't finished after first gulf war operations...because some think the cover was reason enough....the scales were tipped too heavily agains the regimes survival..and Hussein did not help his cause..after all...ha was asked to step down...genocide in the usas area where we have interests would have been enough...except for people like you and people who feel they were duped...history generally falls on the side of the oppressed...and against folks like the nazs and husseins...sorry, my man  It was the Whitehouse's cop out argument You just don't like "w" s copout is your opinionwhen they figured out they f.ed up and suddenly there were 100k+ American service members in Iraq and thousands were dead.  Better than saying- "whoops", I'll give you that.Cheney and w don't say whoops... they feel that the success of the people who live there"Kurds"...and replacing a murdering tyrant who is no longer a threat to the region IS success, sorry you feel different

Do yourself a favor...find where the history book is starting to be written..Kurds have been viewed as victims but adversarial as well...many facets here..but Hussein regime was the primary problem...not wmds...wmds were only a part of it...Hussein was a HUGE threat to the region...no getting around it...history is proving that.
Look up Iraqi Kurdistan and try not to be so caught up with bush jr.

[.Chuck]

Typically I view BlueWarriors posts as a bunch of weird rambling gibberish (that indigo thing is weird dude, it makes you sound crazy), but he has made some really good arguments and solid points in this thread.

The Hussein regime had to go one way or another.  It was a pure evil genocidal, ruthless regime that was a major ongoing threat to the lives of millions of ordinary people trying to live in the area as well as to stability and the possibility of peace in the middle east.  The number of people that suffered daily and that were killed by him/his regime over several decades is mind boggling.  Countless people, even many of his top inner circle people over the years were summarily executed on a whim or because of a sudden mood swing without second thought. 

One example of the ruthlessness of the family is that one of the sons had a star player of the national soccer team executed on the spot (on the field in the stadium) after missing a goal shot or making a bad kick or something like that.  The son was unhappy about the missed kick and ordered his goons to immediately shoot the player in the head right there on the field after the play in front of the crowd.

Hussein had gathered more wealth than 1000s of people could burn through to have a comfortable life in 100s of lifetimes while he left well over 99% of the population of the country with virtually nothing, having to struggle to have basic necessities such as food and shelter each day and living in constant fear of being executed on the spot on a whim.  With the wealth he accumulated while he left the population living in squalor and constant fear of death he built around 28 giant palaces (of the size that it would take years to even visit and hang out in each room of one for a little bit of time), many of which he never even stepped foot in. 

Saddam was given many many chances over several decades to change his ways but instead basically just said F-ck you world and kept killing and taking and oppressing.  He was given the opportunity numerous times to step down and take off with his mind bending amounts of wealth to just go somewhere, chill and enjoy it.  He choose not to do that because he loved the thrill of power and killing people whenever he felt like it. 

The world is a much better place now that he and his sons are gone IMHO. I'm not a fan of the death penalty and would rather he be rotting in a small high security -no escape possible- cell somewhere though, but I'm happy that it was done with a fair full public trial, unlike how Gaddafi was taken out. 

[Julie Fern]

kurds = turds.