Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
If I recall correctly, the belief at the time was that the U.N. had given Iraq too much advanced notice about where and when it would be conducting inspections, allowing Saddam to play a shell game, moving WM Ds out of where the U.N. was about to search, then moving them back once the inspectors had moved on.
The Dalai Lama, however amazingly super pure holy he may be, is not infallible, and does not run a country that has taken on, whether it likes it or not, a degree of global military hegemony. There are bad people in the world, and people who aren't inherently bad but have found justification to fight one another, and someone has to step in from time to time to stop them from making life miserable for everybody else. If you don't want that to be the United States, well, okay, who else is going to do it? Step up to the plate and bring your resumes. We'd love to hand over some of the responsibility
The U.N.? Awesome. Let's support it by giving it political sovereignty and a standing army. Wait, that's too global for ya? Crap, well, I guess we're stuck with the status quo.
edited 12th Jul '16 9:38:58 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh no. They might intervene and stop a genocide. The horror, the horror. The good news (if you want to view it that way) is you probably don't have anything to worry about on that front, since the USA almost never intervenes in genocides.
Something I'll note here, Handle—based on this comment I could easily decide that you are pro-genocide (I know you're not, obviously). It would be about as reasonable as your assumption, based on again, literally nothing, that Clinton is going to start looking for a war.
edited 12th Jul '16 10:22:31 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The funny thing is, Bush and Cheney didn't need to go Wag The Dog like they did. They had a perfectly legit reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein without any mention of WMDs, namely that Saddam Hussein was Saddam fucking Hussein and was himself guilty of genocide and war crimes. But instead, they used a Big Lie in place of a reason and a plan, and in so doing, discredited military intervention in the cause of toppling genocidal dictators.
Sad.
I'm fine with the US stopping genocides, if that was what they actually did. Instead they either stand by while they happen, or make things worse through gross negligence and carelessness.
If the USA had a general policy of stopping genocides, and sticking around for cleanup, in a way that is optimised to benefit the locals rather than their own contractors, that would be great. If they did that often enough, well enough, the goodwill and moral authority gained would be inestimable.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.A large part of the problem is that these two words do not really fit in the same sentence. We don't have a coherent foreign policy, in large part because Americans as a country don't agree on what our role in the world should be, and haven't agreed on it since the Iraq War.
I can predict that Hillary will, like Barack in large part (except probably more competently - I wouldn't classify foreign and military policy as one of Obama's strong suits), attempt to return the US' direction to where it had been in The '90s under Bill - the US as world policeman, without a single defined policy but making use of soft and hard power towards strengthening (in no particular order) world peace, general prosperity, and the American economy.
edited 12th Jul '16 10:52:26 PM by Ramidel
IIRC, one of the motivations was that it was believed Iraq was generally stirring up trouble in the middle east (arming anti-US terrorists and whatnot) and that, if it was turned into a democracy, the middle east would become more peaceful in the long run.
The use of military force to destroy dictatorships and replace them with less-cruel regimes is a good idea in theory. Way I see it, if a regime doesn't respect the rights of its own citizens, then there's no reason for other states to respect its sovereignty. In theory, one (ethically) can declare war on an oppressive regime for basically any reason, so long as they replace the people in charge with something less oppressive. Having said that, in practice there's a lot of other factors to consider other than the nature of the enemy regime. While conquering North Korea wouldn't itself be immoral, it would cause all sorts of other problems that make the ends not justify the means.
In the case of the Iraq war, I'm of the opinion that we should have either not done it, or thrown more time and resources into it. We kind of went in half-way without a great plan and didn't really help much-in some ways making the situation even worse.
edited 12th Jul '16 10:45:57 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Not always helping is a shitty reason to never help.
I don't always give my seat up for elderly people on the tube, if I tried to use that as an excuse to never give my seat up I'd rightly be called a dick.
Saddam was waging a war against both the US and his own people, or so Clinton and everyone else were lead to belive by the 'experts' in the intelligence community.
People today still don't get that Saddam had no connection to Islamic Extremism and 9/11, at the time it as far from clear for some people.
And Saddam was a dick who gassed his own people, his secret police along could have been argued to have been effectively waging a war on his own people. Thing is he wasn't actively committing crimes against humanity and nobody actually spoke to the Iraqi people at the time.
Yes. The people there want it and they're entitled to it. They're not savages who can't understand our delicate western ways.
edited 12th Jul '16 10:50:14 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranControversial GM Food Labeling Bill Approved By US Senate
Herpty derpty doo if it isn't all natural it isn't good for you
![]()
Democracy? Yes. A secular state? Not so much, but you can argue if you can lead a successful democratic state without a secular state.
edited 12th Jul '16 10:59:58 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
The earliest arguments for separation of church and state (Edmund Burke, et. al.) were put forth in large part because people were realizing just how religious (civil) wars sucked. It may be theoretically possible to have a religious democracy but historically it's not been good for stability, especially when democracy comes to a head against doctrine.
Case in point, the GOP draft platform...

IIRC, Saddam had used chemical weapons (WM Ds) before, which would mean that it actually wouldn't be that implausible that he would have WM Ds around the time of the Iraq war.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:59:20 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34