When is war justified or when it is simply imperialism

[Strike For The South]

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

USA USA USA USA

[Vuk]

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.

[Major Robert Dump]

You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.

WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions

[PanzerJaeger]

No... Operation Enduring Freedom actually caused a civil war with what is called the "Northern Alliance" against the Taliban government with no UN support. The Libya situation was massacres by the government upon the civilian population and it was pretty much a full blown civil war before the UN passed the resolution for Nato and others to act.

Here is an interesting article on the international laws broken in Afghanistan.

How is this junk still being propagated? We've been over the nonexistent Libyan massacres. The only ones being massacred were government forces.

[PanzerJaeger]

Easy.

A justified war is a Popular revolution. An unjustified war is one without a popular revolution.

So, Libya was justified, Iraq was not.

How do you define 'popular'? 51%? Would the US have been more justified had it supported the Shiite revolt in '91? What's the shelf life on popular revolts? One would assume Shiite/Kurdish feelings would not have softened towards Hussein since that time.

[Vuk]

WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

[Vuk]

EDIT: oops, double post.

[Major Robert Dump]

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

IRAQ DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DETONATE A NUCLEAR BOMB ON US SOIL

Surely you are not suggesting they would have launched a nuclear missle, which they didnt have and we would have shot down.

And surely you are not falling into the ruse of the "suitcase bomb". Newsflash!!!! A suitcase bomb would kill like a busload of people with a little fallout that would disiipate in a few minuites. There entire concept of a suitcase bomb blowing up NYC is not based in fact. IT is an impossibility. The amount of carry space to transport a devastating nuclear payload by land or sea without melting anyone within a 100m radius would make ti impossible to move without detection, much less move thousands of miles over the open sea and through a us port.

I didn't answer your question because it is irrelevant. You are suggesting that wasting tens of thousand of US lives was worth a "what-if", your what-if being that had not Bush not acted and Iraq used an imaginary super bomb to blow up a US City they had no chances of reaching, then would we blame him? Yeah, sure, I suppose we would, because thats how politics works, and saving a presidents ratings in the public opinion polls is still not worth tens of thousand of ruined lives. Take your rhetorical questions elsewhere.

Iraq was a waste of human lives and American resources, it was an utter circus, and it drew huge amounts of resources away from the legitimate, honorable war in afghanistan. Afghanistan was brished under the rug and Bush pretended we won, when all we did was tutrle inside of giant FOBs and let the Taliban regroup and reap huge poppy profits, all of which the CIA warned us about. By the time we got to focus on Afghanistan again, the battle was already lost. That is Iraq's legacy. It wasted our time, and may very well go down as the stupidest war in American history

[Furunculus]

Where you randomly invade countries with no acceptable jurisdiction or international support to impose your military/economic/political dominance on that area.

By this definition, assisting the rebels in Libya is not being a "dangerous imperialist" (Neither is assisting the Syrian ones)*. Operation Iraqi Liberation and also arguably Afghanistan were.

*If said assistance is validated by the international community (UN).

is that a wholly unambiguous legal definition which has somehow sprung fully-formed from the turgid morass that is international treaties and norms, creating a corpus euphemistically called international 'law'?

[Major Robert Dump]

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.

[Vladimir]

There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.

Now that we're onto Iraq: The fault wasn't in taking her but in not knowing what do do once we had her.

[Major Robert Dump]

I partially agree with tyou there.

We cannot go back in time, and ultimately, we were all powerless to stop the invasion because once The Man sets his mind to it, it's going to be done.

I greatly respect and accept the arguments, harsh as they may be, that the US needed Iraq because we needed a puppet regime in the region for national strategic purposes. I also accept and respect, although harsh, the premise that war is good for your eceonomy and good for your military, as long as it, ya know, doesn't drag on for 10 years.

I m not saying I necessarily agreee with those reasons, just that they are forthcoming and take the big picture into account.

But prattling on and on about a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who might know someone who can build a nukiller weapon is retarded. Pointing out that Saddaam gave money to suicide bombers in Palestine and that means he is in bed with terrorists is BFD. The whole argument of nation building is retarded, as that ws not the original intent but it is a necessary side affect of modern wars in the information age, so when people argue about spreading peace and freedom I cannot hellp but say DUH, we have to, its the right thing to do in a country we just leveled....

But the most painful argument, I started hearing this about 1/2 through the war when the WMDs started to fizzle, was the argument that we were there to fight Al Queda, and it was better to do it in another country than on US soil. Wow. What a pig headed, selfish, no-respect-for-any-other-nation mentality that is, and I am sure it went miles and miles at improving our standing as an international super power: dear world, we would rather start a fight in a soverieng nation to draw the evil sith out of hiding like a bad Star Wars novel, than maybe run the risk of another attack on US soil......

We needed Iraq to succeed, whether it was justified and worth the cost or not. Iraq, as it currently stands, is not a success.

[Vladimir]

Tell, the Queda Magnet Theory was a favorite of mine but was likely an unintended side effect. Done right, Iraq would have been an effective strategic part of the war on terror; however, the plan for Iraq relied on hope and change, which should sound familiar.

Would you prefer a fight in a non-sovereign nation? It's not about respect, and there were enough reasons to invade just like there were in 1998, and when he tried to assassinate a former president, and...

Agreed, it is not a success. It is a very expensive risk.

[Major Robert Dump]

For the magnet theory I prefer no state, and nowhere that civilians who have nothing to do with anything run the rsik of harm

If we really wanted to draw the evil sith from the shadows, I know of a little nation right across the water from Yemen that was already owed an ass kicking. But then again, that's a bit farther away, and they had no infrastructure and no eceonmy that could be used to our advantage, it would be like putting up a tent in a parking lot and trying to camp. Hindsight is 20/20, though, as today it would be awful swell to control that territory.

I think in the end I feel that the entire debalce was very poorly planned and executed with a sense of urgency that was overblown, and the military suffered unduely because of this. Rumsfield was a callous SOB, they perfected Clinton's art of hiding behind the troops and took it to a whole new level in order to stifle debate, we started getting the whole "if we lose Iraq it's because we lost at home" from the pundits who were trying to compare it to Vietnam and apparently think guys in a warzone give a flip (or even know about) opinions back home. The VA was completely unprepared for what was to come. It was not a clear cut case of self defense, the enemy was not at the gates, but we sure mobilized and acted like it.

Sometimes you roll the dice, sometimes the dice roll you

[Vladimir]

Agreed on the lack of planning and suffering, not so much on your target. Again, done right, an Afghanistan and Iraq sympathetic to Western (i.e. U.S.) interests is the best way to turn Iran; there's hope there.

Sometime you bust a nut, some times you bust your nuts. (Translate that you non-native English speakers!)

[Furunculus]

But the most painful argument, I started hearing this about 1/2 through the war when the WMDs started to fizzle, was the argument that we were there to fight Al Queda, and it was better to do it in another country than on US soil. Wow. What a pig headed, selfish, no-respect-for-any-other-nation mentality that is, and I am sure it went miles and miles at improving our standing as an international super power: dear world, we would rather start a fight in a soverieng nation to draw the evil sith out of hiding like a bad Star Wars novel, than maybe run the risk of another attack on US soil......

We needed Iraq to succeed, whether it was justified and worth the cost or not. Iraq, as it currently stands, is not a success.

a line of argument i explored back at the start of 2009:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ached-its-peak

[HoreTore]

This completely ignores the Pakistani desire to annex Eastern Afghanistan and funding a popular movement with money and bodies by promising to turn Afghanistan into a bug muslim frat boy party where the men were men and the women were commodities. The United Front did not have such support, and by yours or my standards the United Front was liberal compared to the Taliban. In northern Afghanistan women walk about uncovered and people do not need to ride in armored vehicles because is is a compeltely different mindset than the monsters in the south.

I freely admit that the warlords did bad things, but not nearly as bad as the Taliban. The idea that this was some sort of popular movement is comical, considering there was very little infrastructure, print media, broadcast media, no cell phones and no internet. Your idea of a popular movement is my idea of some goat herers exchanging runors.

If the Taliban was so popular, they why was there brutal fighting to take Kabul?

First of all: sorry for the late reply, MRD. But I wanted to give you a proper, well-thought out answer to this, which hasn't been possible until now. I don't think your high level posts deserve my regular spin-of-the-moment drivel...

There are a number of points here, and I'll adress them in no particular order:

First off, the pakistani issue. Would the Taliban have succeeded without pakistani, more importantly, the arab support the pakistani connection gave them? No, I don't think so. Mullah Omar and his men were untrained and piss-poor, facing off against several battle-hardened and well-armed armies. In my opinion, this situation is on a very low level comparable to Balkan: without foreign support, the Serbs would probably have steamrolled everyone. With support, the other factions managed a stalemate. Same as for the Taliban - they needed foreign support.

But is it then correct to state that the Taliban only gained control because of their allies? I don't think that's correct either. I believe one has to look to the civil war period to explain Taliban. Let's say Pakistan had pumped money into Hekmatyar, for example, would they have succeeded? I don't think so. And then we have to explain the popular support the Taliban had.

How can anyone support an organization that is loooking to make life niserable for practically everyone? It's because they didn't advertise that aspect. The civil war period made Afghanistan a chaotic, lawless mess. The Taliban offered two things: civil order and no corruption. Let's take civil order first. Even in our societies, which have experienced a century or two of democratic rule, you quite often hear arguments in favour of strongmen who will fix things. Mostly they're talking abiut foreign countries(like Iraq or Somalia), but I have also heard arguments that Norway needs a strong man who will fix things. One must assume that a country with no democratic experience is even more positive towards a strongman. A country in a civil war even more so. Then onto corruption. Afghanistan in 1994 was full of it, on every level of society. Those with power did what they wanted as long as they were able to do it. A religious man is generally seen as less corrupt than others. This is a rather common argument when trying to explain why religion survives through history. Whether the statement is actually true or not is irrelevant, what matters is how they are percieved by others.

The founding story(the one where they hung the governor) of the Taliban is interesting, again whether or not it's actually true. In the story, the Taliban ended the corruption and restored proper order. I think it offers an insight into the Talibans two selling points. The founding story isn't about ordering all the women to remain indoors, for example. Anti-corruption and public order was how they sold themselves, and I believe that message gained quite a lot of support among an exhausted population.

A small digression on the availability of print media and so on. Being a dirty commie bastard, I have learned to history of the revolutions well. In the run up to the Russian revolution, how did Lenin spread his thoughts? He published articles in party newspapers. Newspapers mostly read by fellow exiles. In fact, when he returned to Russia in 1917, he walked around without any protection, simply because noone knew who he was or what he looked like. A year later he was the leader of the state. The media was important, but it's big effect was to give the exiles and important figures a means to communicate and debate their thoughts, it wasn't used to incite the population. That was done without media. Nonetheless, it is ridiculous to claim that the Bolsheviks did not have enormous popular support.

Another similarity to the Russians appear here. In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the events on Bloody Sunday gave the commies massive support. Of course, as we all know, the later regime committed atrocities which made it pale in comparison. Lenin also enacted extremely authoritarian laws from day 1, among them the death penalty for skipping work. Nevertheless, the commies gained more support day by day.

This was the situation back in 1994, as I see it. The situation in 2001 was quite different, and I doubt the Taliban had much support by then. Even then, I do not think that the corrupt warlords of the Northern Alliance had much support either, I don't think the Afghans had forgottenå their rule so soon. I believe it was more of a "screw 'em all"-situaton.

As such, I do not believe that the US invasion was "simple imperalism" as the thread title reads. I believe the Afghan population longed for someone to appear who would end the rule of their tyrants, and that the US invasion was completely justified, even if we take 9/11 out of the equation.

However, I also believe that they did not want the warlords to return, and I believe doing so was one of the worst mistakes the US did. Besides being incompetent rulers, I believe they also made people turn to the resistance movement, which the Taliban has rebranded itself as.

[Major Robert Dump]

Great points. And yes, the Taliban did sell themselves on the anti-corruption angle, and an illiterate, war-torn people bought into it, not realizing that without a tax system that there had to be some way of the governmnet to make revenue, and that way would turn out to be simple shakedowns, purchasing of justice and the siphoning of aid money meant for public works. This is exactly what worries me most about the future of Afghanistan:

- Other than licensing and fees, they have no form of national tax and no way to collect it. They also have a couple million nomads who have their own parliament, further complicating things
- The country can feed itself, even with its backwards, counter productive farming techniques and outdated forms of irrigation, but a poor intra state trade system leaves certain pockets hungry with other pockets throwing away bumper harvests because they dont need that much
- The country and the tribes in the north have practically sold all of their mining rights to China in long term deals for fractions of a cent to the dollar. China lowballed Tribals who had no desire or effort to mine themselves. I doubt many of them have any idea what lithium even is.
- Reintergration of tribal leaders. Amnesty for mid level Haqqani and Taliban. The northern alliance guys are bad enough to have as your allies. The former mujahadeen who claim to have stayed nuetral are either liars or very skilled double crossers, because very few districts stayed nuetral, so they are creepy to have as allies. And now you have former Taliban in the ranks as well. Of course, some of the amnestied Taliban are serious apparently, as several of them have been assassinated by their former association, however what is untlimately unsettling is that they basically did it for money and to be on what they thought would be the winning side. I suppose people can be redeemed, I would just rather not share a tent with them