"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[untermensche]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

You do not get to say you support the killing and rape and torture of innocents because you like people.

Sorry for breaking your rules as to what I'm allowed to say

The rules are called basic human morality and decency.

To be considered moral you cannot deliberately kill or rape or torture innocent people when there is no justification to do it.

You cannot claim you are helping people by terrorizing them and randomly killing some of them. By igniting centuries old sectarian violence.

That is absolute insanity.

Your position is a serious problem with humanity.

Some humans are completely blind to their own immoralities and justify them so easily.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sorry for breaking your rules as to what I'm allowed to say

The rules are called basic human morality and decency.

To be considered moral you cannot deliberately kill or rape or torture innocent people when there is no justification to do it.

You cannot claim you are helping people by terrorizing them and randomly killing some of them. By igniting centuries old sectarian violence.

That is absolute insanity.

Your position is a serious problem with humanity.

Some humans are completely blind to their own immoralities and justify them so easily.

How's it any better arguing for Saddam to stay in power?

Then rape and torture was guaranteed to continue

 

[untermensche]

Sorry for breaking your rules as to what I'm allowed to say

The rules are called basic human morality and decency.

To be considered moral you cannot deliberately kill or rape or torture innocent people when there is no justification to do it.

You cannot claim you are helping people by terrorizing them and randomly killing some of them. By igniting centuries old sectarian violence.

That is absolute insanity.

Your position is a serious problem with humanity.

Some humans are completely blind to their own immoralities and justify them so easily.

How's it any better arguing for Saddam to stay in power?

Then rape and torture was guaranteed to continue

You keep presenting this delusion that the invasion was some surgical removal of a dictator.

It is absolute blindness!

The terrorist attack killed innocent women and children.

It included the rounding up of the innocent and torturing them.

You cannot morally justify all this because the dictator you helped put in place and supported for years stops taking orders.

You don't get to kill and rape and torture a bunch of people because you screwed up in the past and put a dictator in charge because you like dictators in charge, like Saudi Arabia.

A horrible dictatorship that the CIA says just tortured and killed a reporter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You keep presenting this delusion that the invasion was some surgical removal of a dictator.

When did I do that? A quote from me would really help

 

[ZiprHead]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

You're not even a US citizen. Why didn't you lobby your own government to invade.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

You're not even a US citizen. Why didn't you lobby your own government to invade.

You persist in bringing down the level of this discussion to moronic depths.

Why did you even say this? I can be in support of something regardless of which country I live in.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

I like gambling with other people's money too.

I think it's pretty shitty to stick soldiers with an undoable job, though. Militaries are not designed to build or rebuild nations. Militaries are designed to kill people and break things.

Furthermore, the Iraq invasion saw no real relief from atrocities. It only meant that the atrocities were being committed by the Iraqis themselves against each others, as well as the documented atrocities committed by US forces and private contractors.

Anyone with a little military understanding knows that taking up a second invasion before wrapping up the first is a violation of the strategic dictum of never dividing your forces in the face of the enemy. As the Japanese proverb goes, he who chases two hares catches neither. Especially galling was the invasion plan which allotted obviously-insufficient troop levels for securing the nation post-war, and re-establishing order. This virtually ensured a long, drawn-out guerrilla war, and doomed a generation of Iraqis to misery ... and worse.

Why did you even say this? I can be in support of something regardless of which country I live in.

Sure you can -- but "support" is easy when it ain't your ass on the line, when it's not your wife having to care for your paraplegic ass after you come home, when it's not your national treasury being squandered on the wrong invasion at the wrong time in the wrong place against the wrong enemy. When it's not your buddies spilling their blood in some meaningless nation that will devolve right back into autocracy about three minutes after the last GI boards the last airplane home.

Did you lobby your own government for military action?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

I like gambling with other people's money too.

I think it's pretty shitty to stick soldiers with an undoable job, though. Militaries are not designed to build or rebuild nations. Militaries are designed to kill people and break things.

Furthermore, the Iraq invasion saw no real relief from atrocities. It only meant that the atrocities were being committed by the Iraqis themselves against each others, as well as the documented atrocities committed by US forces and private contractors.

Anyone with a little military understanding knows that taking up a second invasion before wrapping up the first is a violation of the strategic dictum of never dividing your forces in the face of the enemy. As the Japanese proverb goes, he who chases two hares catches neither. Especially galling was the invasion plan which allotted obviously-insufficient troop levels for securing the nation post-war, and re-establishing order. This virtually ensured a long, drawn-out guerrilla war, and doomed a generation of Iraqis to misery ... and worse.

I've never said I think USA did a good job. The only thing I've said this is that I think the invasion was justified. Saddam had it coming.

Yes, invasions break things. Which is why it was so important to get rid of Saddam. To show the world's dictators that starting wars ends badly for them. That's how you prevent future wars IMHO

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've never said I think USA did a good job. The only thing I've said this is that I think the invasion was justified. Saddam had it coming.

Yes, invasions break things. Which is why it was so important to get rid of Saddam. To show the world's dictators that starting wars ends badly for them. That's how you prevent future wars IMHO

Yeah, the war to end all wars didn't really work, either.

Also, it needs to be noted that Saddam didn't start the 2003 war. Because of that, the lesson you say was delivered was not the one delivered. What was delivered was the idea that America reserved the right to unilaterally apply military force to sovereign nations. I don't think this message has improved international relations.

I don't think the invasion was justified at all. Indeed, the shifting rationales for the war in the autumn of 2002 gave the lie to the fact that the war was decided-upon first, and only then were justifications ginned-up. It ignored the history of that nation, which evicted the British not once but twice. And it resulted in much more misery than it alleviated. It also prevented America from putting an earlier end to the Afghani war.

With the possible exception of Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq invasion is perhaps the worst foreign-policy blunder in American history.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've never said I think USA did a good job. The only thing I've said this is that I think the invasion was justified. Saddam had it coming.

Yes, invasions break things. Which is why it was so important to get rid of Saddam. To show the world's dictators that starting wars ends badly for them. That's how you prevent future wars IMHO

Yeah, the war to end all wars didn't really work, either.

Also, it needs to be noted that Saddam didn't start the 2003 war. Because of that, the lesson you say was delivered was not the one delivered. What was delivered was the idea that America reserved the right to unilaterally apply military force to sovereign nations. I don't think this message has improved international relations.

I don't think the invasion was justified at all. Indeed, the shifting rationales for the war in the autumn of 2002 gave the lie to the fact that the war was decided-upon first, and only then were justifications ginned-up. It ignored the history of that nation, which evicted the British not once but twice. And it resulted in much more misery than it alleviated. It also prevented America from putting an earlier end to the Afghani war.

With the possible exception of Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq invasion is perhaps the worst foreign-policy blunder in American history.

I didn't say he started the 2003 war. But he invaded Kuwait and it gave him zero repercussions. Iraq was hit by sanctions which he treated as if it was a joke.

That's a dangerous precedent if left unpunished. I'm happy it wasn't

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't say he started the 2003 war.

No, but you said our invasion had the result of teaching other dictators to not start wars. They didn't learn that because that wasn't what happened. In other words, it was implied by your misstating its effects.

It doesn't seem to have dissuaded too many thugs, anyways.

But he invaded Kuwait and it gave him zero repercussions. Iraq was hit by sanctions which he treated as if it was a joke.

That was a different war than the one we've been discussing.

The sanctions after that one had a lot of bite to them, as evidenced by Hussein's many efforts to dodge them, and the many complaints in the left regarding how America was helping to kill children with those sanctions.

And further, that war had other repercussions, such as the northern and southern no-fly zones and the establishment of the Kurdish autonomous region (which, ironically, has been endangered by the fallout from the 2003 invasion).

That's a dangerous precedent if left unpunished. I'm happy it wasn't

Sure. It wasn't you tax-money being wasted, or your GIs coming home in bags. You have the luxury of cheerleading because you weren't on the field. Color me unimpressed by both your cheerleading, and your misreading of history. <shrug>

 

[untermensche]

Actually the US and British sanctions after the first Gulf war were brutal.

They did not harm Hussein much.

But Iraqi's went without food and other essentials. People died.

Several people running the brutal sanctions regime quit.

The US actually started torturing the Iraqi people before the 2003 terrorist attack.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually the US and British sanctions after the first Gulf war were brutal.

They did not harm Hussein much.

But Iraqi's went without food and other essentials. People died.

Several people running the brutal sanctions regime quit.

The US actually started torturing the Iraqi people before the 2003 terrorist attack.

I mostly agree, but could you source the last claim, please?

 

[untermensche]

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

As bad as Saddam was those sanctions were 100 times worse.

Children dying, innocent people being killed and tortured does not even raise the eyebrows of some Americans.

They are soulless creatures, not humans anymore.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, but you said our invasion had the result of teaching other dictators to not start wars. They didn't learn that because that wasn't what happened. In other words, it was implied by your misstating its effects.

It doesn't seem to have dissuaded too many thugs, anyways.


That was a different war than the one we've been discussing.

In your opinion. I also think it's a stupid and misleading distinction.

The sanctions after that one had a lot of bite to them, as evidenced by Hussein's many efforts to dodge them, and the many complaints in the left regarding how America was helping to kill children with those sanctions.

For no reason. Saddam was on purpose starving children and blaming the sanctions. He was also trying hard to make it look like they had WMD's.

He was never going to comply or respect anybody at anytime. He was a monster. He needed to go.

And further, that war had other repercussions, such as the northern and southern no-fly zones and the establishment of the Kurdish autonomous region (which, ironically, has been endangered by the fallout from the 2003 invasion).

What are you talking about? Iraqi Kurdistan is on the verge of becoming independent. Their autonomy hasn't ever been greater than now.

That's a dangerous precedent if left unpunished. I'm happy it wasn't

Sure. It wasn't you tax-money being wasted, or your GIs coming home in bags. You have the luxury of cheerleading because you weren't on the field. Color me unimpressed by both your cheerleading, and your misreading of history. <shrug>

Again... I never said I think it was great the way Bush did it. He rushed the war which meant US took the greatest hit. If he'd waited France would have come aboard and maybe lots of other countries. Bush dropped the ball on it.

You only think I'm misreading history because you think I'm supporting something other than what I'm actually supporting.

All I'm saying is that Untermensch's claim that the US invasion of Iraq was a unjustified war crime is wrong. I think it was justified.

I also think Bush handled the war very badly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

As bad as Saddam was those sanctions were 100 times worse.

Children dying, innocent people being killed and tortured does not even raise the eyebrows of some Americans.

They are soulless creatures, not humans anymore.

Are you insane? Are you actually blaming somebody other than Saddam for this?

 

[untermensche]

It's just that same old problem.

I have basic human decency and morality.

I care when the actions I take are killing people.

If all my sanctions are doing is killing hundreds of thousands of children I cannot continue them.

As a moral agent I cannot take actions that lead to the death of any innocents unless there is no choice.

This desire to kill and torture innocent Iraqi's is madness.

MADNESS!!!!!!

The disconnect from what is actually happening is madness.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have basic human decency and morality.

I think you've proven the opposite.

I care when the actions I take are killing people.

Again, you were in support of keeping Saddam in power. So you clearly don't care about the suffering of people. So stop talking shit.

If all my sanctions are doing is killing hundreds of thousands of children I cannot continue them.

As a moral agent I cannot take actions that lead to the death of any innocents unless there is no choice.

This desire to kill and torture innocent Iraqi's is madness.

MADNESS!!!!!!

The disconnect from what is actually happening is madness.

Do as I say or I will hurt this little cute puppy. That was what Saddam was doing. And your solution was to bend over backwards in support of Saddam. Do you understand now why I think you're devoid of any working moral compass? Saddam only left us with one option and USA were the ones who did the work

 

[untermensche]

I think you've proven the opposite.

Absolute madness!

You think it is moral to kill and torture and rape innocent people.

You have NO morality. None.

All you have is American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions of innocent in Vietnam and Cambodia, FUCKING MILLIONS, is not a moral nation. It is not doing any moral work in the world.

Not liking the dictator anymore that you put into power does not give you the right to kill more innocent people.

That you think it does shows you to have no sense or morality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you've proven the opposite.

Absolute madness!

You think it is moral to kill and torture and rape innocent people.

You have NO morality. None.

I'll just keep repeating it. You're the one who supports rape and murder because that was daily routine in Saddam's regime. If you defend it's continuation you're defending rape and murder.

All you have is American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions of innocent in Vietnam and Cambodia, FUCKING MILLIONS, is not a moral nation. It is not doing any moral work in the world.

It's not relevant to the Iraq invasion.

Not liking the dictator anymore that you put into power does not give you the right to kill more innocent people.

That you think it does shows you to have no sense or morality.

You've already demonstrated that you're fine with rape and murder. So what's your point?