Could the Iraq war be justified?

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The most disgusting immoral position I have heard on Iraq at this forum was from an Acist who stated he could only see a justification for the invasion of Iraq if it was privately funded and for private interest.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you explain why a privately funded war is more upsetting than a publicly funded war?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any possible answer which bush could give that would justify the Iraq war?

[/ QUOTE ]
The 2nd Gulf war was justified because:
1. Iraq violated the armistice MANY times.
2. Iraq attempted an assassination on Bush41 in 1993 when he was visiting Kuwait.
Either of these reasons alone were sufficient enough to go to war. The problem is the Bush adminstration BOTCHED the occupation creating a HUGE mess..... I would have loved to have heard the internal talks in the Bush admin to see if Rumsfeld deserved as much grief as he got for the occupation or whether he was just being Bush's errand boy.

[ QUOTE ]
If Iran were to disrupt the supply of oil this would leave the United States and much of Europe with very little control, giving countries like Russia and China the upper hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
China? No I don't think so. High oil prices are bad for China.

[ QUOTE ]
We will try to improve the standuard of living and create a society which will be envied throughout the middle east and much of the developing world.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was a noble goal but in retrospect it is overly ambitious. Nation building failed in Somalia because of their lawless screwed-up culture. Installing a democrat Iraq will fail because of their culture as well. An enlightened Kurdish dictatorship would have been my choice. Much easily to implement and much cheaper. Iraq's centrally controlled economy would have flourished with the more free-market leaning kurds. The Kurdish version of Saddam would need to burn down a few towns to establish his alpha dog status and then the Arabs would fall into obedience.

The current Shia govt in Iraq are a bunch of 2-face bastards. There are in league with Iran as shown by their repeated attempts to free captured Iranian insurgents. The Shia govt's primary goal to to have a Shia controlled Iraq and to hell with the Kurds and Sunnis. The only thing stopping them is the BILLIONS of aid money flowing from the USA into Iraq. So they try to play the USA for as much money as possible while consolidating their power. If the USA would drop the hammer on Iran, then this pipedream might have a chance...though it would be a small chance. The current occupation policy is analogous to polishing a turd. No matter how much you try to make a turd look shiny...it is still a turd and it will always be a turd...

The question whether Bush41 should have orchestrated the 1st Gulf war is a more interesting question. Getting Kuwait's oil would have almost doubled Iraq's financial power putting their power on par with Iran (Iran is stronger than Iraq as shown by Iraq's need for aid in the Iraq-Iran War).

Pros/Cons of Launching the 1st Gulf War
+A more powerful Iraq MAY have increased its funding of terror.
+A more powerful Iraq MAY have tried to invade Saudia Arabia.
-Iraq is a useful counterbalance to Iran. A stronger Iraq keeps Iran more on the defensive. Iraqis hate Persians and vice-versa, so this mutual distrust is useful. Attacking Iraq weakens them and therefore increases the power of Iran. Which is a bad thing.

*But we will never know.... My guess is Saddam would have moved to make his army more powerful than Iran's and have tried to accelerate Iraq's attempt to get the a-bomb. The increase money would have probably increased Saddam's ambitions and he may have embarked on being the big man of the middle east by becoming a bigger sponsor of terror. I'm sure he would have LOVED to get the Saudi's oil as well if he thought he could get away from it....

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most disgusting immoral position I have heard on Iraq at this forum was from an Acist who stated he could only see a justification for the invasion of Iraq if it was privately funded and for private interest.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you explain why a privately funded war is more upsetting than a publicly funded war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because of a common belief that a civilized country wouldn't start a war because of a profit, but because of more noble, almost humanitarian reasons which is what media is trying to tell and masses believe in this siht. I feel sorry for those who think there's nothing wrong with killing people for private interests. Are there any other similarities in between ACism and Neocons views?

[owsley]

WTF are you two talking about, none of the ACists on this support "killing people for private interests."

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
An ACist made a OP where he said he was against the war but that he could see himself supporting the war if it was privately funded and thus for private interest. Im not saying his view represents the ACist position but I found it disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not knowing who supposedly said this, I would wager that what they meant was that they would have no problem with people who wanted to use private means to help free Iraqi citizens from an oppressive dictatorship.

I'd also like to see a link to said statement, but out of context your restatement of their position seems dubious since 'invading' a country would be a clear violation of people's rights (whereas using force to defend Iraqi citizens from an unjust state would not).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any other similarities in between ACism and Neocons views?


[/ QUOTE ]
"Do you beat anyone besides your wife?"

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most disgusting immoral position I have heard on Iraq at this forum was from an Acist who stated he could only see a justification for the invasion of Iraq if it was privately funded and for private interest.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you explain why a privately funded war is more upsetting than a publicly funded war?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't see why an undemocratic entity waging war against a foriegn country for private interest is worse than a democratically elected one accountable to, at least to some degree, the public and world organisations such as the UN etc?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One million dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One million dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]

I am corrected, more than half a million excess Iraqis dead since, and due to, US intervention according to very reliable publications (The Lancet). Well much more reputable than US intelligence (oxymoron?), see WMD etc.

[zasterguava]

The Guardian reported that a poll a few weeks ago claimed 1.2 million Iraqi's may have died because "of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels."

I actually feel sick when I think about that. Far from ROFL anyway.


edit: regarding the Lancet survet: "In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'."