Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:15:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Uday Hussein

Started by abbot lau, February 03, 2007, 10:16:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brutus Beefcake

Quote from: "sproglette"Unfortunately, it would appear the only people who didn't see this coming a mile off were Dubya and his cronies.

Quote from: "Dick Cheney"So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/


Quote from: "sproglette"So all three of them are dead, and during their lifetime they developed a reputation for being a bit waffy and dangerous, but they knew a darn site more about running Iraq than America could ever dream of.

What a crock of shit!  First of all America isn't running Iraq, and second keeping peace through tyranny is NOT A FUCKING GOOD THING.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quoteit’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Oh come on Dick, it's only fair to invite them over to your place for a match.

Big surprise, he likes fighting wars where his American civilians are thousands of miles away.

Brutus Beefcake

Hasn't he ever heard of the home field advantage?

Quote from: "Shoulders?-Stomach!"
Quotenobody seems to mind making them about the right, yourself included.

What exactly have I said about the right that was 'sweeping', recently?

Your stance of  "some individuals who happen to be left-wing have written articles 'supporting' mass murderers, suicide bombers and women oppressors, therefore that's what the left is." isn't any more acceptable even I I was making sweeping statements about the right.


Seems I'm not the only one making 'sweeping statements' about the left:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Liberals-Lost-Their/dp/0007229690

Shoulders?-Stomach!

You're talking about peoples individual views though. Even if prominent lefties are writing in favour of what you say, that doesn't suggest that they have a massive underlying support. Just that they grasp attention and are forced to say stupid things in order to get it.

Borboski

Nick Cohen has already addressed that argument, you should check out his defence or read the book itself.

One half chapter out of 13 discusses the Iraq war.

micanio

The problem I have with supporters of the war is that their justification of the Iraq war doesn;t seem to hold any water any more.

The main fundamental arguments for the War in Iraq were 9/11 and WMD's. Both of these were proven to be false. So now he's a tyrant who kills his own people.

Quote from: "Brutus Beefcake"second keeping peace through tyranny is NOT A FUCKING GOOD THING.

When did the US (and Britain) become the moral arbiters of the planet? By that rationale, we should be expecting an invasion by the US of China, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe any day now. These are all countries that are run by tyrannies. When do we go in there and start implementing regime change?

Are you telling me that the half a million Iraqi casualties that have occured because of the War is justified because Sadaam is no longer in power?

When did everyone start caring about what was happening in Iraq?

Quote from: "Borboski"Why does US supporting the regime in the past arise?

It was funny that Mr Rumsfeld et al. was happy to sell arms and chemical weapons to Sadaam in the 80's when he was slaughtering his own people. Not a peep then. As long as he's buying, well that's just fine. But as soon as it's deemed appropriate, Iraq is the BIG BAD ENEMY. Lets go get him, he's bad....

Your hypocrisy astounds me. Nearly as much as your arrogance

Borboski

Did the previous US support of the Mujuhadeen in Afghanistan work against any arguments to remove the Taliban?

I really don't understand this argument.  All you seem to be saying is that really, quite frankly, you're rather SHOCKED that anyone who held one position in the 1980s could end up doing something differently two decades later.  In fact, the logical extention of your argument is that it was better for the US to be arming Saddam, than trying to remove him.  It doesn't make any sense.

Secondy, as I've explained before... because we haven't removed other tyrannies isn't an argument against removing another.  Again, there isn't a logical argument here.  There might be in you could order a heirarchy of either 'badness' or of possible risk to your own nation, but even that wouldn't take into account the ability to act against the possible outcomes.

It just seems as though you can make an argument about how the war in Iraq failed to meet its objectives, which, let's be fair, were basically around:
- Making a clear statement of intent towards rogue states.
- Stabilising the region.
... without drawing upon these two fallacies.

pillockandtwat

Look, we've gone over this, the stated objectives of the Iraq war were the removal of WMD.

You keep ignoring that.

EDIT To remove gratuitous swearing

MrT

I'm with micanio on this one, the whole sorry episode has been a disaster.

WMD's - hmmm
DIRECT link to 9/11 - hmmm
Guantanemo Bay
Other countries that are just as bad - oooh, fuck me, they all have decent armies, and we do a lot of trade with China, maybe they're not too bad.
Zimbabwe - doesn't affect the US at all, leave them to it.
Afghanistan - serious error. They'll just withdraw at some point and leave an even more fucked up country.

Do a bit of research into the millions of man hours that goes into justifying the US Defence budget - then look at the companies that get the lions' share of the work. Google is your friend.

Borboski

Quote from: "pillockandtwat"Look, we've gone over this, the stated objectives of the Iraq war were the removal of WMD.

You keep ignoring that.


But they weren't the only stated objectives and only willful ignorance of historical account allows you to keep saying it.  Someone posted back up there a long-list of reasons given (in criticism). One of the reasons given was WMD - you might even say it was central to the case made (although within this, attempting to develop WMD capability can surely be included).

I'm sorry, this discussion isn't central to what you clearly want to talk about, but let me spell out again the points:

This thread is about Uday Hussein.  I was interested in the response of people within what I see as the "morally-outraged" left to that sort of information.  I want to find out if:
a) They are going LA-LA-LA-LA don't care, don't care.
b) In 2003 they knew full well how bad Saddam was, and listened to these sorts of accounts, and thought.. "I'm sorry, tough.  Your women will have to remain being raped and your men tortured.  We can't take the risk that the US might balls-up the reconstruction.  I know that sounds harsh, but you can rest assured I've weighed up the benefits and the costs, and 'not in my name'."

Let me stress again that I do not think these arguments are central to what are now two important debates, i) reconstruction of Iraq, ii) future foreign policy to tackle rogue states and terrorism.

The least one, I think, has to concede, is that these are morally ambigous positions to hold.

To be frank, people's responses here haven't given me a very adequate response to this question.  A lot of A ("but the war was about WMDDDD!!!!???") and a bit of B) ("Uday knew a damn sight more about managing Iraq than the Americans", which is an incredible thing to say.  How would you feel saying that to a husband who's wife had been raped and killed? Eh?).

I think b) is particularly interesting, because when I started to read the Amnesty repots I simply couldn't maintain that position.  Mostly because I knew had no real idea what the outcomes would be - I can't believe many other people here are speaking with such surety.

This sort of reasoning might help indicate why I'm uminpressed by so much bleating about Bliiiiiarrr, and "we tole you, we tole you", because i) it's not useful and ii) it doesn't reflect any real-life complexity.  And worse, it sometimes feels like it doesn't acknowledge B.

And again, like it or not, in arguing in favour of humanitarian intervention neither of the following propisitions undermine the case:
- People who may carry out the intervention helped contribute to the reasons for it (either consciously or unconciously).
- There are other regimes which are also tryannies.

sproggy

Quote from: "Brutus Beefcake"keeping peace through tyranny is NOT A FUCKING GOOD THING.

I agree,and yet those bloody Americans voted him in for a second term.

We need to face up to the fact that there are Good Tyrants and Bad Tyrants, depending on how deeply they feed on the greasy teat of western aid.

MrT

Quote
And again, like it or not, in arguing in favour of humanitarian intervention neither of the following propisitions undermine the case:
- People who may carry out the intervention helped contribute to the reasons for it (either consciously or unconciously).
- There are other regimes which are also tryannies.

Absolute shite.

WTF is 'humanitarian intervention'? Invading another country, sending it into turmoil? If I hand out knives and guns to the local yobs which are subsequently used to kill people I don't think I'm then in a position to criticise, then steam in there, take them back and say "everything's OK now, nothing to see".

Borboski

Fine, you aren't interested.  What's the point, then, eh?  Why don't you explain why it is absolute shite?

In your scenario why do you think you should let them kill each other, rather than try and stop it?

I give up for today.

terminallyrelaxed

Quote from: "solidified gruel merchant"The left have lost their moral authority.

Yeah, if you keep saying that maybe it will come true. I mean, where the fuck did you get that? The Evening Standard, just below a piece about how the congestion charge 'doesn't work'?
The left haven't lost their moral authority, its just the right have decided to ignore it, and at their cost too. Their complete dismissal of any and all criticism about the war will be their ultimate downfall - its happening already.
I'm sure hawks are tired of hearing it, but it doesn't change the fact that there were and still are plenty of other brutal and unleasant regimes around the world that actually could be a real rather than imagined and propagandised threat to their regions and world peace as a whole, but they would have taken more than a week to invade and they don't have any oil.
For the record, I was aware of the kind of thing Saddam and the boys got up to - and I still didn't think we should invade Iraq. This is because you simply can't pick and choose when to claim moral authority as it suits you.

pillockandtwat


MrT

Quote from: "Borboski"In your scenario why do you think you should let them kill each other, rather than try and stop it?

I give up for today.

Because the 'coalition' has done a great job of stopping it. Maybe, just maybe, they are the cause of it.

I am not saying 'we' should have let the 'regime' continue but it is such a badly thought out affair that it smacks of  something dodgy* going on.

*I mean the point I raised earlier. And oil.

Still Not George

Quote from: "terminallyrelaxed"I'm sure hawks are tired of hearing it, but it doesn't change the fact that there were and still are plenty of other brutal and unleasant regimes around the world that actually could be a real rather than imagined and propagandised threat to their regions and world peace as a whole, but they would have taken more than a week to invade and they don't have any oil.
What he said. It doesn't matter that humanitarian intervention was an additional reason (besides "wmds, WMDs, WMDS!, SADDAM HAS WMDs, EVERYONE LISTEN SADDAM HAS WMDS AND HE'S GOING TO KILL US ALL IN A MATTER OF MINUTES! ARRRRRRRGH!" - circa 2002), because the hawk lobby are not suggesting that we deal with any of the other brutal, foul regimes around the world, which undermines that case entirely. Why was Saddam special, exactly? Why was Uday special, exactly? Was there something specially maleficent about the Hussein family which made their atrocities worse than others'?

Of course not. So all we're left with is WMDs (which was a lie, as everyone now understands) and oil. And a lot of dead Iraqis and a lot of unpleasant things still happening. Nothing gained whatsoever, except perhaps a whole lot of cash for Halliburton and a whole lot of oil for the United States... and a few years of "war presidency" for Bush.

And what really, really makes me sick about this whole thing is that the people behind the whole messy absurd bloody death march are the EXACT SAME FUCKING PEOPLE who were all in favour of selling the motherfucker arms in the 80s with which to put himself in that position. I'd think it was a joke if it wasn't a corpse-filled reality.

Quote from: "terminallyrelaxed"
Quote from: "solidified gruel merchant"The left have lost their moral authority.

Yeah, if you keep saying that maybe it will come true. I mean, where the fuck did you get that? The Evening Standard, just below a piece about how the congestion charge 'doesn't work'?
The left haven't lost their moral authority, its just the right have decided to ignore it, and at their cost too. Their complete dismissal of any and all criticism about the war will be their ultimate downfall - its happening already.


There was me thinking it was the Labour party that sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan, when all along it was obviously the Tories.
OK, it was Labour, but as they've done something we don't agree with, we'll put it down to them lurching to the right.
Oh how ordered your world must be.
I've heard Labour party members and prominent left wingers openly supporting suicide bombings in Palestine, and praising murderous regimes (which to be fair they've been doing for years) in Africa and the Middle East.
They have cosied up to fanatical Islamic hardliners and encouraged and fostered anti-semitism.
That's my justification for claiming that the left have lost their moral authority. How about you now justify your rather ludicrous claims. How are the right in this country ignoring criticism about the war, when it was the left that sent us? In what way is this already proving to be their 'ultimate downfall', when the Tories are making their biggest gains in opinion polls for years?
The way I see it, the only people ignoring criticism that will prove to be their ultimate downfall are the Labour Party and Mr Blair. But please, fill me in on your unique world view.

Still Not George

Ooooh. Ladies and gentlemen. I think we may have our first actual honest-to-goodness Tory supporter. Welcome to the board - you may find the prevailing wind is against you, I feel you should be warned.

sproggy

Quote from: "solidified gruel merchant"There was me thinking it was the Labour party that sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan, when all along it was obviously the Tories.

It was actually the British Government that sent us to war in Iraq, something that probably wouldn't have happened if the Opposition had kicked up enough stink at the time the vote was passed through the Commons.

But this is all moot as we all now know that information was purposely witheld whilst other 'facts' were sexed-up to give the impression the UK was under immediate threat from Madman's WMD's

A very sorry state of affairs indeed, and a pretty shit legacy to leave behind.

Quote from: "Still Not George"Ooooh. Ladies and gentlemen. I think we may have our first actual honest-to-goodness Tory supporter. Welcome to the board - you may find the prevailing wind is against you, I feel you should be warned.

Thanks. I'm a small 'c' conservative, not an old etonian (as you can probably ascertain) but I am quite impressed with Cameron so far.
I am honoured to be the only small 'c' conservative on the board and I shall look forward to the challenge.

Borboski

Quote from: "Still Not George"Ooooh. Ladies and gentlemen. I think we may have our first actual honest-to-goodness Tory supporter. Welcome to the board - you may find the prevailing wind is against you, I feel you should be warned.

Haha, yes hello.

I didn't have a reply.  I really haven't looked at this as a Labour vs. Conservatives issue, so I was stumped.

Borboski

Although his comments, prompting a left/right debate, rather than a progressive-humanitarian/realist-morally outraged humanitarian debate... bring to mind this comment from the New Statesman, just after 9/11.

Quote‘American bond traders, you may say, are as innocent and as undeserving of terror as Vietnamese or Iraqi peasants…Well, yes and no, because Americans, unlike Iraqis and many others in poor countries, at least have the privileges of democracy and freedom that allow them to vote and speak in favour of a different order. If America seems a greedy and overweening power, that is partly because its people have willed it. They preferred George Bush to both Al Gore and Ralph Nader. These are harsh judgments but we live in harsh times.’

You have to say maybe he has a point, and let's remember that principles of solidarity and universalism must, surely, mean more to the left than the right.

terminallyrelaxed

Quote from: "solidified gruel merchant"There was me thinking it was the Labour party that sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan, when all along it was obviously the Tories.
Cute.
Quote
OK, it was Labour, but as they've done something we don't agree with, we'll put it down to them lurching to the right.

Yeah, because they were bastions of socialism until 2003. But we're talking about the left, not the Labour Party, at least I am. Do try not to be so blinkered to see this in a wider context than your tawdry little party politics. This a real issue about people dying, its not really acceptable for you to drag it down to the level of backbench point scoring. No serious person believes Britain would have done anything different under a Tory government, and their posturing aside even the Lib Dems would have had a tough time staying out of it, think Wilson and Vietnam.

QuoteOh how ordered your world must be.
Cor, thats a good one, you've argued on the internet before, haven't you?

QuoteI've heard Labour party members and prominent left wingers openly supporting suicide bombings in Palestine, and praising murderous regimes (which to be fair they've been doing for years) in Africa and the Middle East.
They have cosied up to fanatical Islamic hardliners and encouraged and fostered anti-semitism.
That's my justification for claiming that the left have lost their moral authority.
Really? Is that it? Some Tories are out and out racists - guess we should dismiss the lot of them then eh?

Quote
How about you now justify your rather ludicrous claims.

Come now, this is just flailing in the dark isn't it. I haven't made any claims, just asked you to explain where you got yours. As they seem to sum up to "Ken Livingstone's a bit of a credulous twat so the whole of the political left must be buffons too" I think we can just dismiss them and move on.

Quote
How are the right in this country ignoring criticism about the war, when it was the left that sent us? In what way is this already proving to be their 'ultimate downfall', when the Tories are making their biggest gains in opinion polls for years?

Who was talking about the right in this country. "The left sent us", as if the right were booing and waving anti-war banners. Again with the party bollocks. You can't seriously tell me you believe we're going to stick more troops in, take them out, or shake them all about without it being in perfect parallel with the Americans. Come on, really.

Quote
The way I see it, the only people ignoring criticism that will prove to be their ultimate downfall are the Labour Party and Mr Blair.

I refer to the answer above. Whether Gordon or Dave gets to drive next will not be decided by the disaster in Iraq.

QuoteBut please, fill me in on your unique world view.

Heh. Did you get these from an 'issues thread template' or something? I mean, the whole thing's note perfect, theres not enough spontaneity.
1. Feigned confusion.
2. Project ludicrous interpretation of post in question that slots neatly into your agenda.
3. Main agenda consisting of linking series of incidents into a tenuous whole that supports your 'worldview'.
4. Confrontational nonsense that resolves everything for your point of view, in this case that anyone that disagrees with you must therefore be pro-Blair. - This is where it all falls down, really. In one fell swoop you reveal your misunderstanding of the post thats so infuriated you, and use that misunderstanding as a basis to support your limited, single-issue agenda.
5. Final attempt at isolation and rather transparent attempt to project the confusion onto the person that has so rattled your ricketty cage.

Still its nice to see some people out there are trying to learn. If everyone was already right there'd be no satisfaction in trying to help people like you.

terminallyrelaxed

By the way thats about as much as I ever type in a week these days, so for your sake I hope you're not typing a really long reply. Or perhaps you can look at it it as having the last word - on the internet, that makes you right, you know.

Borboski

WOW, that's amazing, you've completely took him to pieces.  I'm amazed.  

There's a bit of irony there, in that in accusing him of "internet arguing by numbers" you're doing an equivalent thing yourself!

terminallyrelaxed

Quote from: "Borboski"There's a bit of irony there, in that in accusing him of "internet arguing by numbers" you're doing an equivalent thing yourself!

Heh, you got me.

Al Tha Funkee Homosapien

So Uday, he was cunt wasn't he?

I won't quote terminallyrelaxeds entire post as I know people don't like wading through reams of stuff they've already read, so I will take his main points and leave his more trite observations to one side.

Quote
But we're talking about the left, not the Labour Party, at least I am. Do try not to be so blinkered to see this in a wider context than your tawdry little party politics. This a real issue about people dying, its not really acceptable for you to drag it down to the level of backbench point scoring. No serious person believes Britain would have done anything different under a Tory government, and their posturing aside even the Lib Dems would have had a tough time staying out of it, think Wilson and Vietnam.

How can you avoid seeing this in the context of party politics? We live in a democracy, whereby each party is accountable for its actions. I don't recall people saying about the Falklands that "it is not acceptable to drag it down to the level of backbench pointscoring". Or in fact any of the more contentious issues that occured under a Tory government. Yet now Labour hold the baton, we are supposed to rise above the party politics and see it as a failure of the nation as a whole?
Your point about the Tories and Lib Dems doing exactly the same is an interesting one. You appear to be suggesting that, on major issues, we have a pre-mapped out agenda that all parties must follow. A conspiratorial suggestion, but not one I disagree with.
Equally you could argue that stateside, in a post 911 world, the Democrats would have been just as eager to capitulate on the politics of fear and launch their own anti terrorist operations.

QuoteReally? Is that it? Some Tories are out and out racists - guess we should dismiss the lot of them then eh?

Isn't that what a lot of people do already? What's good for the goose...


QuoteCome now, this is just flailing in the dark isn't it. I haven't made any claims, just asked you to explain where you got yours. As they seem to sum up to "Ken Livingstone's a bit of a credulous twat so the whole of the political left must be buffons too" I think we can just dismiss them and move on.


But you did make claims. You claimed that:
QuoteThe left haven't lost their moral authority, its just the right have decided to ignore it, and at their cost too. Their complete dismissal of any and all criticism about the war will be their ultimate downfall - its happening already.

Now this appears to be at odds with your assertion that we shouldn't be playing party politics with this issue, and also that regardless of who was in power at the time, the outcome would have been the same.


QuoteWhether Gordon or Dave gets to drive next will not be decided by the disaster in Iraq.

I disagree. Although domestic issues will play a large part in New Labours undoing, for their core supporters and the marginal voters the Iraq war is very much a primary concern.

QuoteBy the way thats about as much as I ever type in a week these days, so for your sake I hope you're not typing a really long reply. Or perhaps you can look at it it as having the last word - on the internet, that makes you right, you know.

Getting your excuses in early eh? As you would say, "cute".