Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

[catman]

If one can easily dismiss the casualties incurred by the invasion how about the massive debt load you now have?

[aq8knyus]

If they seriously cared about limiting civilian casualties, they would not engage in needless warfare. It's that simple. You can talk about a balance all you like, but what you're neglecting is that what you're talking about is a balance regarding how many people it's acceptable to murder for profit. The fact that many of both your and my countrymen are so nonchalant about such things is precisely why it actually happens. "Oh, it's just a balance," they say with calm indifference; I'm sure the young boy whose family just got murdered in the name of that "balance" feels otherwise. These are people's lives you're talking about.

Tolerating a "balance" means tolerating sociopathic, for-profit murder so long as it's pursued in moderation. This is what you're defending.[/quote]

Before you sidetracked me into this interesting but theoretical discussion I had stated pretty clearly that I do not believe the evidence supports the idea that we invaded for profit/oil/money.

I do however think there were obviously economic aims when invading Iraq some of which were pure selfish interest. Though there is no evidence that any of these aims were given such prominence that they worked to the detriment of the humanitarian aims to any great effect.

As for your 'Think of the children' line of argument there were three options in 2003.

1) Intervene after 28 UN Security Council resolutions had been ignored in only 4 years.

2) Maintain the policy of containment, the real crime against the US and UK.

3) Leave Iraq alone completely, no no-fly zone and no sanctions.

In any scenario some poor young boy somewhere is going to die, there is no good option just the least worst option. I am just glad the US and UK recognised their historic role in creating and maintaining Saddams regime and took action.

[aq8knyus]

Nobody accused Bush and Blair of being "masters of global intrigue."
[/quote]

To be fair the entire conspiracy theory of war for oil suggests Bush and Blair lied to go into Iraq not for security or humanitarian considerations but for oil. If that were true I think that would be a case of intrigue.

Unless of course you subscribed to the hard conspiracy theory that it was corporation's controlling government. [/quote]

[aq8knyus]

Catman,

For the UK I do not think the war in Iraq caused the current economic problems. Do you?

As for casualties, civil war was always coming do you think it would have been better for Iraqis if there was no US or UK intervention?

Considering the role of the US in particular for creating and sustaining Saddam do you think it would have been the ethical thing to do?

[Kuros]

Look, this isn't hard.

Those supporting the Iraq War were a broad coalition. There were humanitarian reasons. There were security reasons. There were oil reasons. There were bullshit WMD reasons. There were Israeli reasons. There were Saudi Arabia reasons.

People forget that Bush the elder's skill and discretion in the Gulf War made defeating Iraq look easy. So there was broad confidence in American power. But Bush the younger's ineptitude and foolhardiness had him making errors at every turn. Iraq was even worse a mistake than it should have been.

[aq8knyus]

I broadly agree except for the israeli bit.

I think the big taboo is though that in many ways the UK and US militaries have been defeated in iraq. In so much as they cannot implement their policies for reconstruction.

The same is happening in Afghanistan.

The mess in Iraq since 2003 can be attributed to our miltaries being unable to secure the country.