hey're all happy to accept our help when it's their head on the psychopath's chopping block. I don't resistance to the invasion of Normandy by our British and French friends.

What has this got to do with anything? It seems to be utterly irrelevant./I have not suggested nobody ever needs to go to war.

Let's leave it. I won't be sticking around so you can relax. . . .

So I take your point to be that if Saddam was torturing your family we should not intervene. Ok, duly noted.

What a damn silly comment. Surely you can see that it s silly. .

Your argument here is absurd and not worth engaging with.

We want nothing to do with your constant warmongering, military and political interference or approach to life. — FrancisRay

Any time you wish to withdraw from NATO, you are free to do so. Hey, maybe you could strike up a good deal with Putin, he seems like a nice guy.

Your argument here is absurd and not worth engaging with. — FrancisRay

It probably would be wise for you to retreat before this becomes any more embarrassing.

You know how you know a LOT about Buddhism, and I know almost nothing? I learned from you, I didn't slam down the phone and run away.

You've very engaged by this subject obviously, but you just don't know that much, that's all. Not a crime.

Hi. I have spent an enormous amount of effort, starting in 2002, debating about the 2003 Iraq war. — Paul Edwards

Ok Paul, I carried this ball for awhile. Handing the baton back to you.

The real threat of Saddam getting a nuclear weapon was his living existence. — Hippyhead

One thug doesn't simply make a bomb.

Just look at Ghaddafi: his nuclear ambitions went nowhere, where a laughable joke. And after 1998 so was with Saddam Hussein. His only ability and the thing that invested 100% of his dedication was to stay in power. He couldn't rebuild his army, so he surely could not rebuild a nuclear bomb. This is a very, very unrealistic argument, which history can easily show not to be true.

And then everyone in the region would want their own nukes. A nuclear war in the Middle East could erase the entire region off the map in literally just a few minutes, and could quite credibly suck all the major powers in to a Biblical scale end times scenario. — Hippyhead

Look,

The reason why these countries wanted a nuclear was only to have deterrence against the Israeli nuclear deterrence. The simple fact is that when one side has the nuke and the other side hasn't, then the nuclear armed power can do whatever it wants. Your simply not reasoning the facts here.

And how would they suck all powers to a Biblical end times scenario? You think the Chinese or the Russians will say: "Oh, there having a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, we have to launch our own nuclear deterrence on...somebody?" No. Likely they would demand an immediate halt to the battle just like every other country in the World (except perhaps the US, because the White House has to think about all those Evangelicals and how they will vote in the next elections, because those loonies would be absolutely thrilled about the end times finally coming).

The reason why these countries wanted a nuclear was only to have deterrence against the Israeli nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Why have none of the VERY rich gulf oil states developed nukes in response to Israel, who has had nukes for a long time now? They're not afraid of Israel, that's why. They have rationally concluded Israel is not a threat to them. They're making peace with Israel.

Israel still has a bunch of nukes. The gulf states have none. They're ok with that. Or they would have long ago done something about it, given that they are richer than God.

He couldn't rebuild his army, so he surely could not rebuild a nuclear bomb — ssu

Are you aware that North Korea has a bunch of nukes, built out of an economy about the size of a house cat?

And how would they suck all powers to a Biblical end times scenario — ssu

Are you aware that without Mid East oil supplies the global economy goes in to an immediate drastic nose dive and that such circumstances have always been ripe grounds for conflict among the major powers? Here's what happens when the economy goes down the tubes. People start yelling, "Do something, DO SOMETHING!"

Why have none of the VERY rich gulf oil states developed nukes in response to Israel, who has had nukes for a long time now? They're not afraid of Israel, that's why. They have rationally concluded Israel is not a threat to them. They're making peace with Israel. — Hippyhead

And why have those countries that Israel has annexed territory from and/or been in war with Israel have made efforts to gain a nuclear deterrent?

And it's easy to make peach WHEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN IN AN ACTUAL WAR. The first war that several Gulf States participated was in the liberation of Kuwait. And now some are fighting in Yemen. None have sent troops to fight Israel in any of the Arab-Israeli wars.

I think that the furthest contributer of troops to fight Israel has been Morocco. Yet people don't describe the two countries being in war. They simply haven't yet gotten to normal diplomatic relations. And that's btw what the Gulf "peace deal" is about. Great, but perhaps not so astonishing as Trump wants to picture it.

Are you aware that North Korea has a bunch of nukes, built out of an economy about the size of a house cat? — Hippyhead

The massive conventional army of North Korea already prohibited Clinton to strike North Korea when it was obvious they went on with their nuclear program. Same conclusion came younger Bush too.

Iraq was defeated in 1991 and a no-fly zone was installed back then. The US could with impunity attack it in 1998 destroying the remnants. And likely could have done similar strikes.

Just like with the Syrian nuclear arms program, these things are difficult to hide and once destroyed, you have to start again.

Are you aware that without Mid East oil supplies the global economy goes in to an immediate drastic nose dive and that such circumstances have always been ripe grounds for conflict among the major powers? — Hippyhead

Now you are making arguments for my case that just why a nuclear exchange between let's say Iran and Israel would not escalate bringing other powers to launch their nuclear arsenal.

He wants me to wait until tomorrow before I explain that if he is raping someone I will kill him regardless of any rules preventing me from doing so. If I can get away with it, anyway. If I can't get away with it because his name is Uday and I'm an Iraqi citizen I will instead wait for a US liberation and support that. — Paul Edwards

I asked you to reflect on why a thing is a certain way not what you think it should be. Why does Australian law or Dutch law or UK law prohibit you from travelling across the country and attacking a person you believe is a murderer and rapist? You'd be convicted of murder is you did. Why is that? What are the specific exemptions to that and why?

Sorry, but there simply is no fucking 911 to call for a police in this World when it comes to sovereign states. It's anarchy out their. — ssu

But this is exactly the heart of the problem. We're dealing with a world that has traditionally been rife with dictators. The dictators are never going to agree that democratic nations are the ones who should be judge, jury and executioner of other dictators, but that's exactly the sort of thing needed for justice. It is the democratic countries that have just governance.

So we need a "plan" to deal with the world as it is. YOU should come up with that plan yourself. Then you can compare the plan with what the US government is doing, and maybe email them any suggestions for improvements. If we were all planning on liberating the rest of the world, to end the screams coming from next door, then when the US (et al) executed their plan to liberate Iraq, it would likely have dove-tailed into your own plan.

The US shouldn't need to sell this war to you. You should be selling your liberation plan to them *in advance*.

And note that your plan will necessarily call for deception. You can't let the dictators know you're coming for all of them, as we need the help of allied dictators against non-allied dictators, and we don't want a hostile "dictator alliance". We don't have the luxury of only rubbing shoulders with fellow democracies. The world hasn't yet reached that stage of development. One day it will be a requirement for entering the UN that you are a democracy, and that any country that has a military coup is immediately subjected to a UN liberation. But we're not there yet.

Why does Australian law or Dutch law or UK law prohibit you from travelling across the country and attacking a person you believe is a murderer and rapist? You'd be convicted of murder is you did. Why is that? What are the specific exemptions to that and why?

The operative word there is "believe". People have all sorts of faulty beliefs, so if you only have a belief, and a police force as exists in a modern liberal democracy exists, you should report your "belief" to the competent authorities to deal with.

If you see an actual crime *in progress* you are allowed to act rather than wait for the authorities to arrive.

Now back to Iraq. You probably subscribe to the theory that the UN regulates the use of force. But I don't see a collection of thugs as some sort of moral authority to decide when force is used. I see them as a collection of immoral thugs.

So I will pay lip service to the UN, as I don't want dictators to start wars the same way we do, but I will ignore the UN whenever it is strategic to do so. And my argument is that you should be doing the exact same thing. Don't let dictators or other immoral actors decide US policy. Do the right thing instead! And we can debate what the "right thing" is in an open forum. We have more scope for debate than our government does. Our government has to swear blind that they want "just one more war". We can instead talk about how we're planning to liberate the whole damn world.

Because, as I've explained, I'm not a psychopath. You might get off in hundreds of thousands of innocent people dying

Almost all of the death toll was due to sectarian violence, not war. Are you saying we should let religious bigots decide whether they can enslave a population or not? And does freedom for brown people have no value to you? Brown people shouldn't be fight and die in any fight for freedom? They should just accept eternal slavery? Is that what you would want for yourself, if you were enslaved? Better to be enslaved than have a risk of being killed?

to enable America to control Iraqi oil, but I cannot.

Have you ever met even ONE person who supported the 2003 Iraq war so that America could control oil? If you have met such a person, they are both an idiot, and they failed in their mission, because the Iraqi people are the ones who control Iraqi oil now (instead of Saddam, your preference), and they sell it on world markets for world prices (just like your hero Saddam did).

Are you seriously equating criticising a country for war crimes with invading a country illegally, bombing seven shades of shit out of it, bombing hospitals, weddings, funerals and schools, and torturing prisoners? There are very few intelligent right-wingers, I suppose.

The problem here is that there are very few non-racist left-wingers. Iraq was suffering a holocaust and you just yawned, as it was only brown people being tortured, mutilated, raped and murdered, and brown people are little more than savages in your eyes, and they certainly can't handle democracy. Not only didn't you care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, you actively tried to stop the cops when they tried to end the holocaust.

You mentioned that US soldiers also committed crimes, which is true. But do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL crimes? When Saddam was committing his crimes, it was LEGAL for him to do so. The police were on the side of the criminal. An Iraqi woman could be LEGALLY raped. Which means the entire population of Iraq didn't even have the right to not be raped. Or have the right to keep their tongue in their mouth.

When the US commits crimes, they are TRIED and JAILED, because it is ILLEGAL.

All this is, plus the war, is done to the best of our ability. We're not perfect. The US police are not perfect when they respond to a 911 call either. That doesn't mean you don't call 911 when you hear screams from your neighbor's house. Only someone truly sick would listen to the screams from their neighbors, or Iraqi women, and then not just not call the police, but complain about the police when they are responding.

I happen to think we should invade the USA to impose regime change, and you seem to think it would be fine to do this. So my army has support on the ground.

The US is already a secular capitalist liberal democracy which is the best system we know of. I don't like Trump personally, and he will be gone in 0 or 4 years. If he is not gone after 4 years, in principle I support liberating the US from a Trump dictatorship. The rest of the world really needs to maneuver into a position where we can in fact liberate the US. That means the nuclear weapons need to go.

But that's a really long-term plan. In the short term I'm just trying to eliminate enemy dictators.

Like Abu Ghraib? — Kenosha Kid

The US soldiers did that (hazing terrorists) ILLEGALLY and they were TRIED and JAILED. Where was your mock concern when Saddam was LEGALLY chopping out people's tongues and committing REAL torture against innocents?

Iran would not be different, there would be a near-endless post-war guerilla offensive by non-state actors and the end result would almost certainly be worse for Iranians than what they have right now. — Judaka

This is why we need 20 liberations under our belt. We STILL don't have enough data to understand war, and in the long term, we need that. In my opinion Iran will be quick and painless. All you need to do is reuse the old security forces and you can be in and out in 3.5 weeks flat.

Or even less than 3.5 weeks, as the Iranian people may rise up in revolution as soon as they have planes overhead to protect them from automatic weapons.

We really need to find out.

By the way, what the hell do you people think fascism is? The debate between you and Kenosha Kid has been incredibly dumb.

I agree. He's the one calling anyone who disagrees with his sick ideology a fascist.

Then just to waltz in, take control of a country through a military occupation and demand a highly function democracy where there hasn't been any, when the various population groups have suffered genocide done by the others and want their own country and independence, is simply condescending Western hubris that basically is totally indifferent to the reality in the country. It is simply just smug self posturing likely to hide other objectives. — ssu

Expecting Iraqis to be as intelligent and sensible as Americans is the opposite of condescending.

And the fact that they are not is exactly why the West needs to get in there and fix the problem.

Note that x% of Iraqis are just like us, so that's a bloody good start. There's no genetic or religious barrier to being just like us. Now over the course of decades or centuries we need to bump x up to 99. As part of responding to 9/11. We need sensible individuals worldwide. Or at least enough sensible people that an individual nutcase finds it hard to find organize a terror group to attack the US.

The idea that the USA is a democracy is a game of words. It looks like a dictatorship to me. — FrancisRay

Have you not seen the media bashing Trump, the opposition party bashing Trump and ahead in polls? You're calling that a dictatorship? The same as Saddam?

How do you actually manage to cross a road safely? "That's not a car, it's a squirrel".

I'm surprised to find we disagree on this. I suspect it's very difficult for you guys over there to see the wood for the trees, so powerful is the 24/7 political propaganda. — FrancisRay

Wow, what condescending tripe. The US has a very vibrant democracy, no different from yours.

At least you might ask yourself why Britain was about the only country to support Bush's war. Why not more?

There were plenty of countries that joined the coalition, including Australia. It is true that the UK was better than Australia though, providing 7 times as many troops on a per capita basis, and being on par with the US. Impressive indeed.

But more important than the number of countries (I counted 40 here, which is a significant chunk of the world), is the fact that there were decent people in every country who supported freedom for Iraqis. And what is important is whether this IDEOLOGY of freedom is right or wrong. Even if 0 countries supported liberating Iraq, the ideology stands on its own merits. So you need to address the actual ideology.

Also note that 50% of Iraqis themselves supported the liberation. That makes millions of Iraqis more moral than you.

We must be careful here. I do not want to be rude to an entire nation, but I wonder if you realise the vast extent of the disgust for US foreign policy.

Assuming that is true, it just shows that the US is far more moral than the rest of the world. It's certainly more moral than my country, Australia, because the immoral Australians withdrew our troops from Iraq before the job was complete, leaving our long-standing ally America to fend for herself. Totally disgusting and I hope a future Australian government eventually apologizes for that. Specifically I expect the right-wing party that supported troops in Iraq to apologize for the left-wing party that pulled them out.

The UK is in danger of having to do a trade deal with the US, and everybody I know is terrified of the possible consequences. We want nothing to do with your constant warmongering, military and political interference or approach to life. — FrancisRay

The British people don't speak with one voice. There are plenty of decent British people who supported liberating Iraq. Now the challenge is to deal with the immoral Brits who instead supported institutionalized rape and tongue-cutting.

Responding to 9/11 also involves fixing Britain.

What a damn silly comment. Surely you can see that it s silly. . — FrancisRay

I have no idea why you think it is a silly comment. It's a very accurate analogy. If you want the cops called to protect YOUR human rights, you should also call the cops to protect the human rights of OTHERS. It's a very simple philosophical question. It is amazing how people can come up with sophistry to explain why Saddam should have been left in charge to brutalize the Iraqi people.

Your argument here is absurd and not worth engaging with.

There is nothing absurd about it. It is the right position to start arguing from. Do you agree with the concept of calling the cops on an abusive neighbor or not? Then we can work our way up to Iraq. It's philosophy. This is a philosophy forum. It's not that complicated, it's something that you can answer yourself. Do you call the cops or not? As Hippyhead said, it's a yes/no question. No sophistry required.

Ok Paul, I carried this ball for awhile. Handing the baton back to you. — Hippyhead

Thanks. You did a good job with your simple analogy. The same analogy you can find from a US soldier here.

And does freedom for brown people have no value to you? — Paul Edwards

I want to further note that when it comes to your OWN human rights, you demand them to be protected to the nth degree. But when it comes to an Iraqi's human rights, there is nothing that can't be ignored. If Saddam had been raping babies and chopping off their feet, would THAT have been enough to goad you into action? Sadly, we both know the answer to that.

I rarely quote entire posts, but this one deserves it. Right on the money. Well done Paul!

But this is exactly the heart of the problem. We're dealing with a world that has traditionally been rife with dictators. The dictators are never going to agree that democratic nations are the ones who should be judge, jury and executioner of other dictators, but that's exactly the sort of thing needed for justice. It is the democratic countries that have just governance.

So we need a "plan" to deal with the world as it is. YOU should come up with that plan yourself. Then you can compare the plan with what the US government is doing, and maybe email them any suggestions for improvements. If we were all planning on liberating the rest of the world, to end the screams coming from next door, then when the US (et al) executed their plan to liberate Iraq, it would likely have dove-tailed into your own plan.

The US shouldn't need to sell this war to you. You should be selling your liberation plan to them *in advance*.

And note that your plan will necessarily call for deception. You can't let the dictators know you're coming for all of them, as we need the help of allied dictators against non-allied dictators, and we don't want a hostile "dictator alliance". We don't have the luxury of only rubbing shoulders with fellow democracies. The world hasn't yet reached that stage of development. One day it will be a requirement for entering the UN that you are a democracy, and that any country that has a military coup is immediately subjected to a UN liberation. But we're not there yet. — Paul Edwards

Are you saying we should let religious bigots decide whether they can enslave a population or not? — Paul Edwards

No, I'm saying that you cannot justify your evil with the evil of others.

And does freedom for brown people have no value to you? Brown people shouldn't be fight and die in any fight for freedom? — Paul Edwards

Do you always call them brown people? Is that especially relevant?

Have you ever met even ONE person who supported the 2003 Iraq war so that America could control oil? — Paul Edwards

One of the two people who pushed the Bush administration into the war at every opportunity was quite clear about why he did it.

Not only didn't you care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, you actively tried to stop the cops when they tried to end the holocaust. — Paul Edwards

This is the most insane conversation I've ever been in. For all you know I was 10 years old during GWII (I wasn't, but...)

When Saddam was committing his crimes, it was LEGAL for him to do so. The police were on the side of the criminal. — Paul Edwards

The police you keep referring to (the US military) were the criminals in this case. Is that better?

When the US commits crimes, they are TRIED and JAILED, because it is ILLEGAL. — Paul Edwards

Yet to see anyone responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq to be tried and jailed.

Because this is a philosophy forum, I want to take a moment for an argument against the war in Iraq.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost trillions of dollars. What if we had taken every penny of that expense and invested it in say, solar energy? The goal would be to make MidEast oil irrelevant, thus pulling the rug out from under the power of all MidEast dictators.

Something like this is happening now with Trump's sanctions on Iran. He's steadily yanking the cash cow out from under the mullahs, limiting their ability to make trouble around the region. He very surgically knocked off their head of trouble making, and then immediately sought to defuse the situation. As much as I hate the guy, that wasn't a bad move.

OMG! I said something nice about Trump a few days before an election!! I definitely need to be tortured! :-)

No, I'm saying that you cannot justify your evil with the evil of others.

It is not evil to liberate people. Losing your own blood and treasure for the freedom of others is the highest ideal we can strive for.

Do you always call them brown people? Is that especially relevant?

I have no idea. I don't know what motivates you to not just ignore the screams of brown people but actively try to stop them from being helped.

One of the two people who pushed the Bush administration into the war at every opportunity was quite clear about why he did it.

What did he actually say? Did he say "we need to lose blood and treasure so that we can control Iraq's oil"? If he did, he's an idiot, and he failed in his goal.

This is the most insane conversation I've ever been in. For all you know I was 10 years old during GWII (I wasn't, but...)

I'm talking about in hindsight. It's the position you need to adopt by opposing the action, even belatedly.

The police you keep referring to (the US military) were the criminals in this case. Is that better?

If you believe there is a law that prevents the US from liberating millions of Iraqis from state-slavery, you have a responsibility to:

1. Ignore that law for now.
2. Do your best to get that law changed.

How far have you progressed so far?

Yet to see anyone responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq to be tried and jailed.

See above.

Communist China is the biggest dictatorship in human history. A competition between them and democratic countries may be the defining political issue of the 21st century. Point being, Iraq might be seen as small potatoes, Afghanistan even smaller. Should we perhaps stand back from a past we can do nothing about and focus on the future big picture?

Obama wished to shift the focus from the Mid East to the Far East, so doing that is not a conspiracy by right wing baby killing corporate slave masters etc etc.

For all you know I was 10 years old during GWII

You mean you're not 10 years old now??? Dang, I got that one wrong.

I don't know what motivates you to not just ignore the screams of brown people but actively try to stop them from being helped. — Paul Edwards

You are very histrionic, indeed disturbed individual.

You mean you're not 10 years old now??? Dang, I got that one wrong. — Hippyhead

No, I reached that age where something isn't automatically true because a bunch of right-wing politicians told me. We keenly await your arrival.

No, I reached that age where something isn't automatically true because a bunch of right-wing politicians told me. — Kenosha Kid

But you haven't reached the age where you can make anything close to a credible argument against the Iraq war. So I had to do it for you. See above.