|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:No, maybe my reading comprehension is poo poo, but It's either that or your capabilities for logical reasoning are on the level of a literal child, since you don't even grasp the well-known principle that pointing out that an argument doesn't work isn't the same as arguing its inverse. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Again, I am not a liberal interventionist. You are the ones supporting the Iraqi "intervention" in Kuwait! How do you not see this? It was an intervention literally sanctioned by the US and you're acting as if America was the good guy, and you're justifying the whole thing with boilerplate liberal interventionist arguments that incidentally can only possibly work if you ignore the literal slave underclass of Kuwait, who sure as poo poo never were asked for their opinion on the matter.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if a "literal military occupation" and "forceful occupation" was by itself a strong enough case for intervention, why did the US have to lie about it? IDK anything about what the US used to justify itself at the time. I am not going to pretend that the US motives were to help the Kuwaiti people. But the OUTCOME of that intervention, as opposed to most other US-led interventions, was better than if they hadn't intervened. Pener Kropoopkin posted:The integrity of lines drawn on a map by Europeans a hundred years ago must be sacrosanct. So this is just straight up "Saddam did nothing wrong by invading Kuwait" right? I am not misinterpreting you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:But the OUTCOME of that intervention, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Again, I am not a liberal interventionist. You are the ones supporting the Iraqi "intervention" in Kuwait! How do you not see this? there was little public support for intervention in Kuwait right up until the White House put on their dog-and-pony, so if you want to go around calling the majority of the American people some kind of uncaring monster for refusing to go to war in the Middle East, go right the hell ahead
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:IDK anything about what the US used to justify itself at the time. I am not going to pretend that the US motives were to help the Kuwaiti people. But the OUTCOME of that intervention, as opposed to most other US-led interventions, was better than if they hadn't intervened. Dude, how can you go into the whole false equivalency spiel a couple of posts ago and not get that this very argument that you yourself are advancing could just as well be used to justify Saddam attacking Kuwait? Oh, wait, it's because you're a liberal interventionist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Let's all drop the pointless dancing. Was Saddam wrong in invading and occupying Kuwait, yes or no? Would life in Kuwait be better under Iraq, or not? Once more, in case you missed it the first eleventy billion times, idgaf about US motives. I am talking about the outcome. Was the outcome of the Gulf War better or worse for the people of Kuwait than Iraqi occupation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
there's only one way to find out
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Dude, how can you go into the whole false equivalency spiel a couple of posts ago and not get that this very argument that you yourself are advancing could just as well be used to justify Saddam attacking Kuwait? Oh, wait, it's because you're a liberal interventionist. Okay, so you're saying the population of Kuwait would arguably be better off under Saddam than under their previous government. There is no getting around this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:I am talking about the outcome. Was the outcome of the Gulf War better or worse for the people of Kuwait than Iraqi occupation? Not for the serfs. Which, by your own logic about the outcomes, would mean that Saddam was actually justified in attacking. This seems a little odd, since you seem to believe the opposite, which leads us to one of two conclusions - either you're an ignorant dumbass or you don't consider the gulf state slave underclass as actual people. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Okay, so you're saying the population of Kuwait would arguably be better off under Saddam than under their previous government. There is no getting around this. The slaves almost certainly would have been, on account of no longer being enslaved. And no, there is no getting around that your own logic argues against your professed conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would like to point out that the Gulf War was prompted by Saddam Hussein being told by the US Ambassador that they had no objections to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and then was sold to the public by having the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador testify to Congress that Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out of incubators. The woman did not identify herself as such, and her story was a complete fabrication, as she was coached by a PR firm What's the benefit of okaying one ally to invade another ally? Only to annihilate them militarily and strengthen the regional rival you've backed them against that is hostile to you? I haven't heard about the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, but the first part with the argument that the US ambassador gave Saddam the greenlight seems to been disproven in 2011 when the cable of her meeting with Saddam was part of the files released by WikiLeaks. https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/jan/07/the-us-embassy-cables https://www.juancole.com/2011/01/glaspie-memo-vindicates-her-shows-saddams-thinking.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Not for the serfs. Which, by your own logic about the outcomes, would mean that Saddam was actually justified in attacking. This seems a little odd, since you seem to believe the opposite, which leads us to one of two conclusions - either you're an ignorant dumbass or you don't consider the gulf state slave underclass as actual people. Can you give a source for your claim that, under Saddam, the serf underclass would not remain as it was before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Can you give a source for your claim that, under Saddam, the serf underclass would not remain as it was before? The lack of a serf underclass in Iraq. Also at least 170000 of them managed to escape, according to your own sources, which is pretty big if you ask me. Also you don't get to demand that people prove a negative, just for future information. But it's good to know that you've finally realized the fatal flaw in your reasoning. It's OK to climb down now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
It's conceivable that the 1 million Kuwaiti citizens who are incredibly rich by being in a microstate that sits on top of an oil reserve, might be worse off as part of a bigger country with more people in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The lack of a serf underclass in Iraq. Also at least 170000 of them managed to escape, according to your own sources, which is pretty big if you ask me. Also you don't get to demand that people prove a negative, just for future information. You are the one justifying the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, so you are the one who needs to explain why an invasion motivated by acquiring Kuwait's oil reserves would lead to a liberation of the oppressed sections of Kuwait's population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Jose posted:bringing back a classic ahaha I was thinking about this He's got a good grift going, I'll give him that
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Also, why, if you say those 170,000 Indian nationals who were evacuated by their government were slaves, did the Indian government only do so at Saddam's inavsion, which according to you would have led to their liberation ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:I haven't heard about the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, but the first part with the argument that the US ambassador gave Saddam the greenlight seems to been disproven in 2011 when the cable of her meeting with Saddam was part of the files released by WikiLeaks. Maybe something got lost in translation? Im willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt here. Anyone could make such a mistake and invade Kuwait
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:I haven't heard about the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yaR1YBR5g6U
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:ahaha I was thinking about this its 100% believable to me that there was a guy or guys in the SAA back in 2010 who was updating their Wikipedia page with accurate war materiel statistics. Whats the point of having this stuff if you're not going to show it off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:You are the one justifying the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, so you are the one who needs to explain why an invasion motivated by acquiring Kuwait's oil reserves would lead to a liberation of the oppressed sections of Kuwait's population. No, you colossal dumbshit, you're the one who's inadvertently been justifying it all along. And now that the actual conclusions of your argument are laid bare you're scrambling to deny the underlying facts that inescapably lead to said conclusions. I'm the one that's disagreeing with your logic here. And not only this, you're doing it in the dumbest way possible, such as demanding that people disprove the idea that Saddam would just retain the near-unique gulf state institution of a massive army of enserfed menial servants. who were only lured there in the first place so that the gulf elite wouldn't have to do any actual work. poo poo, at least you haven't started going on about babies and incubators yet. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Also, why, if you say those 170,000 Indian nationals who were evacuated by their government were slaves, did the Indian government only do so at Saddam's inavsion, which according to you would have led to their liberation ? Well gee, maybe it was because the fact that the Kuwaiti elite had stolen all their passports didn't really matter anymore? And I see we're veering very close to open denialism over how the gulf states actually were and are treating migrant labour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
The bottom line is that it wasn't worth going to war with Iraq and killing all those people, just to preserve the integrity of Kuwait. A country that only exists today because of the special status it got as a British protectorate. Certainly not considering all the consequences that would come a decade down the line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, you colossal dumbshit, you're the one who's inadvertently been justifying it all along. And now that the actual conclusions of your argument are laid bare you're scrambling to deny the underlying facts that inescapably lead to said conclusions. I'm the one that's disagreeing with your logic here. I am not denying that the gulf states have built up a serf underclass. I don't see how anything I've written could be construed as support for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A short time ago, the thread kept saying something I agree with completely: that US interventions have destabilizaed the region and caused or contributed contributed to the growth of jihadi movements. Yet now, you're saying that in 1990, Saddam's profit motivated annexation of Kuwait would only improve the living conditions of the Kuwaiti population. I simply can't see how you manage to hold these two positions at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
the point about liberal interventionism is the constant exhortation to “do something” without any analysis of the motivation of the empire doing the intervention. if you view the gulf war by itself then maybe you can try to justify it. that’s dumb though, that’s babby analysis. instead intervention has to be viewed as part of a series of cynical and opportunist geopolitical moves by the current global nazi monster (the united states) so we can see it in the context of what the intervention meant after saddam hussein became no longer useful, post his failed invasion of revolutionary iran the first gulf war was preceded by our support for iraq during the iran/iraq war. then we implicitly allowed the invasion of kuwait so we could intervene, and followed by a decade of sanctions that killed untold amounts of iraqis, and that followed by a catastrophic war by the original george bush’s son that murdered millions all of these events based on, of course, a progression of manipulating truth or just outright lies. and these events are also at the core of why much of the middle east became so dramatically unstable in a long line of the US constantly intervening from the opposite side of the world so with all that in consideration, the first gulf war was bad. there’s no way to prove a counter-factual, maybe of the US hadn’t invaded the entire world would be under the boot of the global iraqi empire i think more people would be better off, though, and more people would be alive anyway death to america THS has issued a correction as of 19:18 on Dec 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The bottom line is that it wasn't worth going to war with Iraq and killing all those people, just to preserve the integrity of Kuwait. A country that only exists today because of the special status it got as a British protectorate. Certainly not considering all the consequences that would come a decade down the line. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an inescapable consequence of the Gulf War. It was a deliberate decision perpetrated by a neoconservative administration with the enthusiastic support of a majority of the American people. The US could have absolutely chosen not to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:I am not denying that the gulf states have built up a serf underclass. I don't see how anything I've written could be construed as support for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. you keep loading this conversation by referring only to the "kuwaiti population" and ignoring its class dimensions. like, what do you think is the worst case scenario for Kuwaiti citizens under Iraqi occupation? what about the migrant laborers? AFancyQuestionMark posted:The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an inescapable consequence of the Gulf War. It was a deliberate decision perpetrated by a neoconservative administration with the enthusiastic support of a majority of the American people. The US could have absolutely chosen not to do it. We could have chosen not to go to war in 1990 too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:you keep loading this conversation by referring only to the "kuwaiti population" and ignoring its class dimensions. like, what do you think is the worst case scenario for Kuwaiti citizens under Iraqi occupation? "Another crackdown occurred in January and February 1991. Iraqi forces publicly executed suspected members of the Kuwaiti resistance. Kuwaitis were kidnapped, their corpses later deposited in front of their family homes. The bodies of executed Kuwaiti resistance members showed evidence of different kinds of torture, including beating, electrical shocking, and fingernail removal.[36] Some 5,000 Palestinians living in Kuwait were arrested for their activities in support of the resistance, and Palestinian support was enough to cause Iraqi officials to threaten Palestinian leaders. " Pener Kropoopkin posted:what about the migrant laborers? I don't see any reason why the majority of them wouldn't remain trapped in the exact same arrangement as before. Do you think Iraq would have returned their passports? Even if so, the borders were closed during the occupation. Pener Kropoopkin posted:We could have chosen not to go to war in 1990 too. But I am arguing that going to war in 1990 was the correct choice, as opposed to other times when it was not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
an empire takes every possible foothold to exploit further intervention. this is the country that launches massive cruise missile strikes if the president gets caught getting his dick sucked in the white house. and that’s the democrats. intervention has to always be opposed because historically it only leads to further and worse intervention. you don’t let nazi germany come up with humanitarian excuses to exercise their military power
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:I am not denying that the gulf states have built up a serf underclass. I don't see how anything I've written could be construed as support for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. OK, dude, since you're a bit slow, let me walk you through what just happened here. You say that if an military intervention leads to a better outcome than not intervening then you view it positively, i.e. it is justified. Where this goes off the rails in the Kuwait case is that you're so tongue deep in the rear end in a top hat of liberal interventionist thought that you didn't even for a second stop to consider if Saddam's intervention would, on balance, lead to a better outcome than not intervening. So far it has been shown that it most likely would, or at least if we think that the Kuwaiti slaves are fellow human beings worthy of having their rights respected. Additionally you've also said that the motivations of the US for intervening shouldn't factor into our reasoning, and consequently it follows from your own argument that Saddam's motives for invading Kuwait shouldn't factor into the reasoning either. Yet you keep returning to his motives anyway, again because you can only view this through the lens of liberal interventionism. Also note that I haven't said anything about my own opinions on the Kuwait invasion so far, this is all you, champ. tl;dr: You're so blinded by ideology that you don't even know what your own argument logically leads to, and now you're flailing in confusion because it turned out that it was the opposite of what you thought it was. As a consequence you're feverishly wikipedia-ing up everything bad that Iraq ever did, real or imagined, regardless of what you're saying makes any sense or not, because you're too dumb and stubborn to admit that you or your ideology could possibly be wrong. Just look at the fact that you've been reduced to arguing that Saddam would have kept a huge population of people enserfed even though he had absolutely no motive or gain from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
like id be hesitant to let the american military get involved in thwarting an invasion from outer space without somehow trying to cynically gain the upper hand over everyone else and getting even more people killed
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:OK, dude, since you're a bit slow, let me walk you through what just happened here. Where has this been shown? AFancyQuestionMark posted:I don't see any reason why the majority of them wouldn't remain trapped in the exact same arrangement as before. Do you think Iraq would have returned their passports? Even if so, the borders were closed during the occupation. Cerebral Bore posted:Just look at the fact that you've been reduced to arguing that Saddam would have kept a huge population of people enserfed even though he had absolutely no motive or gain from doing so. Given that he originally invaded Kuwait for profit, do you truly not see any motive whatsoever for him to keep hold of an already extant serf underclass? Without any actual incentive to release them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
why do saddam’s motivations matter lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Can you people not even entertain the idea that an intervention can be good when it's purpose is to stop an ongoing military occupation or some other atrocity? Had the Japanese not attacked, should the US have stayed out of WW2 as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony That's sure something to watch. Although I think Colin Powell reading a kid's plagiarized essay at the UN to justify the Iraq War tops this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
for all you know saddam hussein’s rule over the breakaway province of kuwait could have heralded a new era of peace and prosperity for the people if greater iraq
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
THS posted:why do saddam’s motivations matter lol Because Crebral Bore argued he would have released the serf underclass because he had no motive to do otherwise. I pointed out his obvious motive to do otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:But I am arguing that going to war in 1990 was the correct choice, as opposed to other times when it was not. Yeah and your argument is loving stupid for all the reasons that have already been brought up. You can't just isolate one war as a "war of choice" which somehow occurred in a vacuum, when it was the direct result of a previous war of choice creating the geopolitical situation that realized the conditions for that choice to be made. History doesn't stop when it's convenient for you. All the stuff you've brought up about the conditions for Kuwaiti citizens and Iraqi atrocities were brought up to justify the 2003 invasion, and then some. It's laughable that you refuse to see the parallels. There's no such thing as any kind of humanitarian principle that takes choice out of the hands of global actors and forces them to go to war. That's absolute nonsense. Coalition partners went to war with Iraq to preserve a geopolitical status quo. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Even if so, the borders were closed during the occupation. The borders were opened during the occupation. That's how so many people were able to flee in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
trying to equate intervention in gulf war 1 to intervention in ww2 owns and is the last refuge of a dumbass
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Where has this been shown? You denying facts doesn't make them less true. Also you, personally, argued about five posts ago that the motives of the intervening power don't matter. So if you want to pursue this line of argument, I'll have to demand a detailed and complete proof that Saddam would, in fact, have kept them migrant workers around in the same conditions. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Because Crebral Bore argued he would have released the serf underclass because he had no motive to do otherwise. I pointed out his obvious motive to do otherwise. Incidentally, you have posited absolutely no motive so far, much less a plausible one. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Can you people not even entertain the idea that an intervention can be good when it's purpose is to stop an ongoing military occupation or some other atrocity? Had the Japanese not attacked, should the US have stayed out of WW2 as well? We're talking about Kuwait. Also begging for people to admit that you might have some kind of point sometimes is not a good look, pal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
So is trying to equate intervention in the Gulf War and the "intervention" (against what, exactly?) in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
america sucks and is gay
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 15:46
|
|