Is the war in Iraq justified or unjustified?

[Simbiosis]

What do you think?

[Fungus Amungus]

Justified.

[Anarchology]

Unjustified. Anyone who thinks we had any right to go in and fuck everything up in that country should also feel the same way against Iran, Pakistan, and the majority of the Middle East.

I would say that the Bush Administration lied, but I'm sure some people on this forum would get their panties all up in a bunch, so lets just say that ALL of the reasons we were told we were invading Iraq for turned out to be false!

[Fungus Amungus]

How about if I was to say that I believe all of what you just said is the actual lie.

[Anarchology]

How about if I was to say that I believe all of what you just said is the actual lie.

That makes no sense at all! Please elaborate!

[TFS]

Justified, but not for the reasons Bush sited. Had he been smart, he would have focused solely on the violations of UN sanctions and simply made it an issue of the UN enforcing its own standards.

[Spike Lee]

The Bush administration alleged Iraq's attempts to get yellowcake was justification for military action.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

This was bullshit. This statement was based on a report from Italian intellegence. Doubts were placed on it by Italian intellegence and US Intellegence. They were later revealed to be a forgery.

the Downing Street Memo was a note of a secret July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time.

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Another justification for the war was the supposed link between Saddam Hussein's government and terrorist organizations like AQ. Bush on focused special attention on ties between Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to Powell he was a frequent collaborator with Bin Laden. A CIA report in early October 2004 "found no clear evidence of Iraq harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1).

[rand0m]

Fact: Saddam was a dick

Fact: We need oil, thank yourselves for that one, you want to be against the war? Stop driving your fucking car then.

Fact: We underestimated the sheer stupidity and evil of the Islamic world, no rational thinking would have thought that in face of freedom, oppertunity and charity they would resort to blowning themselves and each other up.

[Cbr]

Fact: We underestimated the sheer stupidity and evil of the Islamic world, no rational thinking would have thought that in face of freedom, oppertunity and charity they would resort to blowning themselves and each other up.


Those ungrateful savages! How dare they not like that we've bombed their country back into the stone age and call it liberation? How dare they not like that we've killed their families and called them accidents?

Please remove your head out of your ass, even thinking they'd thank you for bombing them shows mind numbing levels of ignorance, even now after 5 years you still haven't figured out what you did wrong. Unbelivable!

[Zardozus]

Justified, to some extent right now.
Afghanistan and then Iraq served huge notice that the US, UK and others will eventually go and start fighting people as long as this terrorism and threat shit keeps coming out of the Muslim Arab World.
It really does slow them down.
By 'them' I would refer to Syria (who have STFU since Iraq) and Libya (who all but instantly asked to switch sides and become an Ally after Iraq) and not just that either but I am talking about the many 'peoples' in the Arab Muslim world who realise there is big consequences if you keep fucking around.

The other aspect here is a bit difficult to declare because its basically trying to determine how many Jihadists have been eliminated in Iraq.
Of course we know the USA has had absolutely amazingly low body counts.. I mean I am still just AMAZED its less than 5,000 in all this time?
But,
How many Jihadists have been eliminated they don't like to give out estimates.
I was once told (by a fairly good source) its something around 8-1 and another said 'more like 10-12 to 1'.
Meaning,
that might be 30,000 (we are just guesstimating) Jihadists who are now dead.
Thats a lot.
I especially like that the Iraq war has forced most of the would-be 'fence sitters' to make a decision to become Jihadi fighers or not. All the ones who tend towards wanting to join Al Quaida or Jihad but were not quite motivated yet.
Now they have the USA sitting right there in the backyard and if they are gonna go Al Quaida... now is the time.
Then we eliminate them.


Now the next question here.. we are waiting to see IF Iraq can come around and become a real full-fledged modernised and mostly free democracy.
I think its very possible.
Iraqis (the people) have always been quite bent towards high education, innovation and I think they 'want' to be more like a Turkey or a Jordan even... a progressive modern people.
Lets hope.
If that does pan out and then you really are seeing the Middle-East changed and more stable.
IF Iraq goes that direction then I could easily see where we won't have to worry about Iran when its own people (also a more progressive type people themselves) overthrow their own crazy-ass jihadi goverment and quickly go democratic.

BTW... I still see people using terms like 'legal war' but here is the cold hard facts:
There is no such thing as 'legal or illegal' wars anywhere, anytime, ever. There is none.
You basically just invade or attack a country because... well because you just do.
There is no actual 'standards' and if you want to bring up the 'UN' then you still have to know that its really just nothing there. I mean, X number of countries can just make some 'Resolution' if they like.
But there is no 'legal' or 'right to invade' to anything.

[Jenovah]

Unjustified.

Afghanistan was more than enough, and the false justification of why we went in there holds no merit anymore.

[pinger]

Fact: Saddam was a dick

Fact: We need oil, thank yourselves for that one, you want to be against the war? Stop driving your fucking car then.

Fact: We underestimated the sheer stupidity and evil of the Islamic world, no rational thinking would have thought that in face of freedom, oppertunity and charity they would resort to blowning themselves and each other up.

Yeah, those ragheads totally deserved it. FFS

[rand0m]

Those ungrateful savages! How dare they not like that we've bombed their country back into the stone age and call it liberation? How dare they not like that we've killed their families and called them accidents?

Please remove your head out of your ass, even thinking they'd thank you for bombing them shows mind numbing levels of ignorance, even now after 5 years you still haven't figured out what you did wrong. Unbelivable!

How ironic ...

I think I'll save my last shred of decency and not bother to uselessly tell you how wrong you are.

[Cbr]

How ironic ...

I think I'll save my last shred of decency and not bother to uselessly tell you how wrong you are.

Oh you were so witty with that comeback. You must have spent quite a while to think it up.

[Spike Lee]

Justified, to some extent right now.
Afghanistan and then Iraq served huge notice that the US, UK and others will eventually go and start fighting people as long as this terrorism and threat shit keeps coming out of the Muslim Arab World.
It really does slow them down.
By 'them' I would refer to Syria (who have STFU since Iraq) and Libya (who all but instantly asked to switch sides and become an Ally after Iraq) and not just that either but I am talking about the many 'peoples' in the Arab Muslim world who realise there is big consequences if you keep fucking around.

The other aspect here is a bit difficult to declare because its basically trying to determine how many Jihadists have been eliminated in Iraq.
Of course we know the USA has had absolutely amazingly low body counts.. I mean I am still just AMAZED its less than 5,000 in all this time?
But,
How many Jihadists have been eliminated they don't like to give out estimates.
I was once told (by a fairly good source) its something around 8-1 and another said 'more like 10-12 to 1'.
Meaning,
that might be 30,000 (we are just guesstimating) Jihadists who are now dead.
Thats a lot.
I especially like that the Iraq war has forced most of the would-be 'fence sitters' to make a decision to become Jihadi fighers or not. All the ones who tend towards wanting to join Al Quaida or Jihad but were not quite motivated yet.
Now they have the USA sitting right there in the backyard and if they are gonna go Al Quaida... now is the time.
Then we eliminate them.


Now the next question here.. we are waiting to see IF Iraq can come around and become a real full-fledged modernised and mostly free democracy.
I think its very possible.
Iraqis (the people) have always been quite bent towards high education, innovation and I think they 'want' to be more like a Turkey or a Jordan even... a progressive modern people.
Lets hope.
If that does pan out and then you really are seeing the Middle-East changed and more stable.
IF Iraq goes that direction then I could easily see where we won't have to worry about Iran when its own people (also a more progressive type people themselves) overthrow their own crazy-ass jihadi goverment and quickly go democratic.

BTW... I still see people using terms like 'legal war' but here is the cold hard facts:
There is no such thing as 'legal or illegal' wars anywhere, anytime, ever. There is none.
You basically just invade or attack a country because... well because you just do.
There is no actual 'standards' and if you want to bring up the 'UN' then you still have to know that its really just nothing there. I mean, X number of countries can just make some 'Resolution' if they like.
But there is no 'legal' or 'right to invade' to anything.

What a load of horse shit. All of it.

Justified, to some extent right now.
Afghanistan and then Iraq served huge notice that the US, UK and others will eventually go and start fighting people as long as this terrorism and threat shit keeps coming out of the Muslim Arab World.
It really does slow them down.
So invading a country and destroying it order and balance is ok, because we sent a message to a group of people that were not in Iraq. Lives have been lost to send a message? That is so fucking stupid and selfish. Looking for our best interests or not, that is bullshit. The more we stay there the more reason the produce to attack us.

The other aspect here is a bit difficult to declare because its basically trying to determine how many Jihadists have been eliminated in Iraq.
Of course we know the USA has had absolutely amazingly low body counts.. I mean I am still just AMAZED its less than 5,000 in all this time?
But,
How many Jihadists have been eliminated they don't like to give out estimates.
I was once told (by a fairly good source) its something around 8-1 and another said 'more like 10-12 to 1'.
Meaning,
that might be 30,000 (we are just guesstimating) Jihadists who are now dead.
Thats a lot.
Since you are using numbers and deciding how many are low and how many is a lot, 2,740 people died in 9/11. 3,966 of our men have died in Iraq. Which is higher? Oh wait, the 9/11 death toll includes foreigners as well. Well, two Australians, 174 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

And since I provided a source for my numbers I demand that you provide a source for yours. Not like it will sway me when you toss human lives around in this topic like it's nothing.

I especially like that the Iraq war has forced most of the would-be 'fence sitters' to make a decision to become Jihadi fighers or not. All the ones who tend towards wanting to join Al Quaida or Jihad but were not quite motivated yet.
Now they have the USA sitting right there in the backyard and if they are gonna go Al Quaida... now is the time.
Then we eliminate them.

I also like how you said that people who were not in AQ are now in it because of our presence and that we can kill them. If we were not there in the first place then they would of not been part of that group. Being part of the insurgency was not initionally a part of AQ. That changed.

Baathist loyalists who had fought for Saddam made up the initial resistance to coalition forces. "Before, I carried my weapon as an officer in the Iraqi army against the Americans," says Abu Mohammed, a senior leader within the Iraqi nationalist branch of the insurgency. "So it is natural I would fight the Americans now. The resistance is a natural reaction to any occupation." Slowly, however, Baathist groups ran low on funding. This provided an opening for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters, who used lots of cash and an Islamic ideology persuasive to some Iraqis to increase their influence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/view/

Now the next question here.. we are waiting to see IF Iraq can come around and become a real full-fledged modernised and mostly free democracy.
I think its very possible.
Iraqis (the people) have always been quite bent towards high education, innovation and I think they 'want' to be more like a Turkey or a Jordan even... a progressive modern people.
Lets hope.
If that does pan out and then you really are seeing the Middle-East changed and more stable.
IF Iraq goes that direction then I could easily see where we won't have to worry about Iran when its own people (also a more progressive type people themselves) overthrow their own crazy-ass jihadi goverment and quickly go democratic.

With the split of the population into three factions, Iraq will not be a stable nation and it might shape up to be a nation that will have three new borders. Iran will not go that way. Again, the Middle East hates the American presence. Installing our own form of government is not sending a message that the ME wants.


Should I even touch the whole legal and illegal war bullshit youy spewed? We have laws, both domestic and international. By your notion, shooting heroin is not illegal.

[rand0m]

Oh you were so witty with that comeback. You must have spent quite a while to think it up.

One of these pictures is of Iraq the other a 'bombed out wasteland'

Picture 1 (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/31/hiroshima_wideweb__430x323.jpg) - Picture 2 (http://i.pbase.com/v3/10/354710/2/49252628.DowntownBaghdad.jpg)

You're ignorance is pathetic, you think America is killing everyone and trashing Iraq just doing what all the moronic media outlets love to rave about.

Pull your fucking head out your ass.

[IrishNed]

And how many of the so-called Jihaddist victims were civilians, including women and children??

... difficult to declare because its basically trying to determine how many Jihadists have been eliminated in Iraq.
Of course we know the USA has had absolutely amazingly low body counts.. I mean I am still just AMAZED its less than 5,000 in all this time?So we are revisiting the Body Count boondoggle that served the U.S. Military so well in VietNam. Body counts aside, ALL the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudis! Usama bin Laden is a Saudi. Why didn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia?? Now the next question here.. we are waiting to see IF Iraq can come around and become a real full-fledged modernised and mostly free democracy.
I think its very possible.That has absolutely nothing to do with why the U.S. preemptively invaded Iraq. Back then, the Mission was to 'take out' Saddam Hussein's WMD's. Only after the Bush Administration found out that it had been fooled by Saddam did they start coming up with stuff like building a democracy. BTW... I still see people using terms like 'legal war' but here is the cold hard facts:
There is no such thing as 'legal or illegal' wars anywhere, anytime, ever. There is none.
You basically just invade or attack a country because... well because you just do.
There is no actual 'standards' and if you want to bring up the 'UN' then you still have to know that its really just nothing there. I mean, X number of countries can just make some 'Resolution' if they like.
But there is no 'legal' or 'right to invade' to anything.I agree!
The Bush Administration failed to consider one fact: Saddam was actually performing a Service for the U.S. and other Countries in the Region. Saddam had Iran 'Contained;' and, when Al Qaeda operatives tried to come across Iraq's borders to foment insurrection, they would be summarily executed by Saddam's Presidential Guard. That's what happened to Jihaddists while Saddam Hussein was in Power. Now, Iraq's borders are revolving doors

[_Joe]

Some would argue that Sadam was trying to make it apparent that he had weapons to sell to terrorists, so whether we had intel on it or not we had him basically admitting to it.

Others would argue that the lack of intel should have prevented us from going, regardless of what Sadam wanted the US and Iran to think about their weapons programs.

It's one big grey area right now, I think, so I'm not voting one way or another.

[Thomson]

Fact: Saddam was a dick

Fact: We need oil, thank yourselves for that one, you want to be against the war? Stop driving your fucking car then.

Fact: We underestimated the sheer stupidity and evil of the Islamic world, no rational thinking would have thought that in face of freedom, oppertunity and charity they would resort to blowning themselves and each other up.

we need oil?

well why don't we just erm...........BUY IT!!!!!

and that last one did make any fucking sense

[Fungus Amungus]

We don't need oil we need refineries. There hasn't been a new refinery made in America since the 70s and the OPEC countries are controlling the supply to drive up prices. Thanks to eviromentalists we are in this oil sharade.

[Awesome-o]

Unjustified.

- violation of sovereignty
- cost of war => HUGE
- amount of oil => doesn't compensate at all for ^
- many people are dying
- not much good has come out of it for anybody
- so what, saddam is dead, shoop da whoop

[Buddha Bukakke!]

We don't need oil we need refineries. There hasn't been a new refinery made in America since the 70s and the OPEC countries are controlling the supply to drive up prices. Thanks to eviromentalists we are in this oil sharade.
No, thanks to the lack of funding for research in alternative resources, we are in this sharade. Don't blame environmentalists for trying to ensure that the earth survives a couple more hundred years.

[blabam]

No, thanks to the lack of funding for research in alternative resources, we are in this sharade. Don't blame environmentalists for trying to ensure that the earth survives a couple more hundred years.

the earth will be fine in a couple of hundred years.

[Jenovah]

the earth will be fine in a couple of hundred years.

QFT

"The planet is fine, the PEOPLE are fucked!" - George Carlin

[viepr149]

fact of the matter is. The Bush Administration was looking in the best interested of themselves and the country (sorta). But there a fucking country and they have the power to say fuck Iraq were taking over. Just like the Romans...if they wanted a piece of land they took it over. I dunno why you guys think its any different nowadays. The US wants power, and wants to be ontop of shit.

Like for real, they have the latest technology most countries in this world will shit there pants if US declares war.

[TFS]

Unjustified.

- violation of sovereignty
- cost of war => HUGE
- amount of oil => doesn't compensate at all for ^
- many people are dying
- not much good has come out of it for anybody
- so what, saddam is dead, shoop da whoop

If violation of sovereignty is a reason for a war to be unjustified, then wouldn't any war be unjustified? Wouldn't our own revolution be unjustified since it technically violated the sovereignty of the British Empire?

War, by definition is a violation of sovereignty, so unless you're trying to say "war is unjustified, period" you really shouldn't use sovereignty to debate justification.

[Awesome-o]

If violation of sovereignty is a reason for a war to be unjustified, then wouldn't any war be unjustified? Wouldn't our own revolution be unjustified since it technically violated the sovereignty of the British Empire?

War, by definition is a violation of sovereignty, so unless you're trying to say "war is unjustified, period" you really shouldn't use sovereignty to debate justification.

Wars of response, eg. responding to a violation of sovereignty, are justified as long as the violation can be well proven. Or when allowed by the UN for gross humans rights violations.

Revolutions do not violate sovereignty as they do not directly infringe upon another country and are merely, from the perspective of all other nations, internal affairs.

EDIT: and to add to that, some countries undergoing internal conflict will request another countries/organizations help to deal with the issue in which case the violation of sovereignty ceases to be a violation.

[TFS]

Wars of response, eg. responding to a violation of sovereignty, are justified as long as the violation can be well proven. Or when allowed by the UN for gross humans rights violations.

Revolutions do not violate sovereignty as they do not directly infringe upon another country and are merely, from the perspective of all other nations, internal affairs.

EDIT: and to add to that, some countries undergoing internal conflict will request another countries/organizations help to deal with the issue in which case the violation of sovereignty ceases to be a violation.

Alright...still uncomfortable with the term, but can't argue that logic.

[Daucus Karota]

Wouldn't our own revolution be unjustified since it technically violated the sovereignty of the British Empire?
.

its one of the most vile and unjustified acts in human history!
























































a crime against humanity

[Mr. Heskey]

Originally I believe it was. I, like many other though Iraq did have WMDs...




...but we are here 5 years later wasting billions/week.

[BlueQuarter]

Well let's go into NK now!


Might as well..

KJI is a dictator. He has tested Nuclear Weapons.
But, shit... NO OIL!

ggnextmap

[Zardozus]

So invading a country and destroying it order and balance is ok, because we sent a message to a group of people that were not in Iraq. Lives have been lost to send a message?

When the message being delivered is 'stop attacking the West' and 'stop killing people' then its a worthwhile message.

Since you are using numbers and deciding how many are low and how many is a lot, 2,740 people died in 9/11. 3,966 of our men have died in Iraq. Which is higher?

No matter what - these are shockingly low numbers considering you not only are invading Iraq but then policing it for 5 years!
Amazing!
What was Vietnam.. 60,000?

Just amazing and a tribute to supreme efficiency.
I'd almost be curious to find out how many Police officers give their lives within every 5 years on US soil?
To think that you have Al Quaida and insurgents swarming to the US soldiers in what amounts to Guerrilla warfare... and only 4,000 losses!
Amazing.


And since I provided a source for my numbers I demand that you provide a source for yours. Not like it will sway me when you toss human lives around in this topic like it's nothing.

You don't give a shit about US losses in Iraq.
In fact, you would like the number to go higher and higher because its fodder for you.

I also like how you said that people who were not in AQ are now in it because of our presence and that we can kill them. If we were not there in the first place then they would of not been part of that group. Being part of the insurgency was not initionally a part of AQ. That changed.


Oh yes, they would be doing this shit anyways. We actually know this because Clinton already tried the 'leave them alone' strategy and even tried to show the US was so 'unbiased' that it would actually help the Muslims in Yugoslavia.
Bombed the shit out of Serbs for the benefit of Mujahadeen.

What actually happened was the Al Quaida types declared these as victories and proof they were winning.
They got ballsier.
Then attacked your country.


Should I even touch the whole legal and illegal war bullshit youy spewed? We have laws, both domestic and international. By your notion, shooting heroin is not illegal.

Nope.
It actually is illegal to shoot heroin in this country.
Its not 'illegal' for the USA to invade Iraq because there is no such 'Law' and no authority to enforce any laws.
The USA (or any nation) does not have an authority over it. We are all on this planet each to his own.
It might not be a good idea to invade some other nation... but there is no one to decide whats 'legitimate or not'.
Sorry.
Thats just the obvious state of the planet.
Maybe we will get a World Government in place one day and they can make some laws?

[Spike Lee]

When the message being delivered is 'stop attacking the West' and 'stop killing people' then its a worthwhile message.

No it's not. Especially when Iraq never attacked the west. Iraq never attacked the United States of America. It never attacked Great Britain. It never attacked France or Germany. Your flawed rational would of been acceptable if it were Saudi Arabia, these people harbor and finance terror. But we didn't attack these people. And the Saudi Royal family is in good terms with our administration. Why is that?

No matter what - these are shockingly low numbers considering you not only are invading Iraq but then policing it for 5 years!
Amazing!
What was Vietnam.. 60,000?

Just amazing and a tribute to supreme efficiency.
I'd almost be curious to find out how many Police officers give their lives within every 5 years on US soil?
To think that you have Al Quaida and insurgents swarming to the US soldiers in what amounts to Guerrilla warfare... and only 4,000 losses!
Amazing.

Obviously you didn't get my point. You were tossing out numbers saying they were low, I earlier tossed a number saying the amount of soldier deaths in Iraq are higher than the number killed in 9/11. If you are gonna decide what is low and what is high, that is bullshit.

You don't give a shit about US losses in Iraq.
In fact, you would like the number to go higher and higher because its fodder for you.
Don't ever assume that is what I feel. I do not want the number to increase. I have a friend that is affected by this.




Oh yes, they would be doing this shit anyways. We actually know this because Clinton already tried the 'leave them alone' strategy and even tried to show the US was so 'unbiased' that it would actually help the Muslims in Yugoslavia.
Bombed the shit out of Serbs for the benefit of Mujahadeen.
You know why they do this? Because we back Israel. Israel is a country that is more than capable of protecting itself. They have beaten six fucking countries in six fucking days. We have no bussiness being there other than stopping terrorist who are motivated by our presence there. A fucking catch-22. Oh yes, Clinton's approach. We never had a policy where we did not interfere. I again point to Israel. Fucking stupid horse shit.

What actually happened was the Al Quaida types declared these as victories and proof they were winning.
They got ballsier.
Then attacked your country.

More horse shit. Present sources on this. Present CIA intellegence.

It actually is illegal to shoot heroin in this country.
Its not 'illegal' for the USA to invade Iraq because there is no such 'Law' and no authority to enforce any laws.
The USA (or any nation) does not have an authority over it. We are all on this planet each to his own.
It might not be a good idea to invade some other nation... but there is no one to decide whats 'legitimate or not'.
Sorry.
Thats just the obvious state of the planet.
Maybe we will get a World Government in place one day and they can make some laws?
:rolleyes:

You have no concept of law. UN resolutions have been accepted as law. They are approved by Congress. They are law.

[Deamatix]

You don't give a shit about US losses in Iraq.
In fact, you would like the number to go higher and higher because its fodder for you.

Wow, that's ironic from someone who said:

No matter what - these are shockingly low numbers considering you not only are invading Iraq but then policing it for 5 years!
Amazing!

Seems to me you are the one who treats human lives like numbers.

Maybe not supporting the war is a sign someone DOES give a shit about losses in Iraq... you know... like maybe they want that number to stop rising? Just a thought.

[TFS]

Spike, in terms of wars, the numbers are low. In terms of tragic atrocities that should not happen, they are high.

[EVO_9MR]

wasn't it revealed that Saddam WANTED the world to know he had WMD's when he in fact did not, so he could keep Iran intimidated. So i don't necessarily believe the government flat out lied about the WMD's to go to war but i also don't believe in interventionist policy.

[Azwethinkweizm]

Justified.

At the time before we invaded, there was enough evidence for us to do so. Even though it turned out to be false, we put our faith in that it was true.

Anybody who says unjustified is a terrorist.

[Spike Lee]

Spike, in terms of wars, the numbers are low. In terms of tragic atrocities that should not happen, they are high.

Then you missed the point of what I said.

[Fungus Amungus]

If you want to look at the war by numbers then Iraq is a success.

If you look at it from a moral stand point, well you can look at it two ways. One the way that the American and European government was acting out not in the interests of it's citizens. The other way is that the government was removing an abusive government which was commiting crimes against humanity. Now both sides have thier reasons which can't be defuited. But in no way do I think people support this war just for blood lust. I honestly believe this war was started for the good of America, trying to eliminate an known out spoken enemy of America and also that the end goal was to create a better government for the people of Iraq.

With that said I gotta say both is true. Saddam had intentions of harming America, he order his military to fire upon us in 1990 and in 2003. If he had no intentions of harming us there would be no reason to suspect him and if we even had the initiative to invade he would try to talk it out with the governments opposing him. That wasn't the case and if he had the weaponry he would of aimed at Western countries.

The second part of this is it was PROVEN that Saddam and his sons would kill people with no reason. Constant censorship of society and complete control of everything. Saddam also commited genocide against the Kurds. UN called these killings "ethnic cleansing", because calling it "genocide" would've required intervention by UN law.

In conclusion, I see this as a effort for Western ideals (like democracy) and one for humanity. By giving power back to the people of Iraq.

[Spike Lee]

If you want to look at the war by numbers then Iraq is a success.


Way to back it up with a good argument.
If you look at it from a moral stand point, well you can look at it two ways. One the way that the American and European government was acting out not in the interests of it's citizens.
Which is the way that it was. I backed it with credible and ligitmate sources.

The other way is that the government was removing an abusive government which was commiting crimes against humanity.

Then why not go after North Korea? There was a lot more conclusive evidence to go after North Korea. But why didn't we? Why didn't we go after Syria or Libya? Again, we went to waR with intellegence that was not credible. If the president truly believed the horse shit that was "the smoking gun", then he is truly 100% deserving of all the jokes that make fun of his intellegence.
Now both sides have thier reasons which can't be defuited.

Oh fuck that, they have been refuted.
But in no way do I think people support this war just for blood lust. I honestly believe this war was started for the good of America, trying to eliminate an known out spoken enemy of America and also that the end goal was to create a better government for the people of Iraq.
People support this war for a neoconservative agenda, oil, or ignorance.
With that said I gotta say both is true. Saddam had intentions of harming America, he order his military to fire upon us in 1990 and in 2003. If he had no intentions of harming us there would be no reason to suspect him and if we even had the initiative to invade he would try to talk it out with the governments opposing him. That wasn't the case and if he had the weaponry he would of aimed at Western countries.
Wrong wrong wrong. A foreign country was going in and toppling his government. If the same happened to us, we would not allow that.
The second part of this is it was PROVEN that Saddam and his sons would kill people with no reason. Constant censorship of society and complete control of everything. Saddam also commited genocide against the Kurds. UN called these killings "ethnic cleansing", because calling it "genocide" would've required intervention by UN law.
Again, then why not intefere in Sudan with the Darfur genocide? Or liberate Cuba for once and for all?

[Anarchology]

Justified.

At the time before we invaded, there was enough evidence for us to do so. Even though it turned out to be false, we put our faith in that it was true.


There wasn't enough evidence. The war we started in the Middle East was geared towards taking out Bin Laden. Thats why we went into Afghan. Exactly how the War took a detour, baffles the living shit out of me.

I remember watching the news when hearing about Iraq, and thinking, "What the fuck? We are invading them for what fucking reason?" Ohhhh, but I couldn't say that out loud, or be called a terrorist myself.

Back to justified or unjustified, we had our weapons engineers in there looking for what something they never found. The answer was already on the table in front of the Bush Administration and the officials sent to look for the weapons was just a bullshit fail safe.

The engineers had two possible outcomes....

1. That they found WMD's, which would have been when Bush says, "See I told you! Let's fuck 'em up!"

And what actually happened:
2. They look for a couple weeks, and don't find anything. This is when the Bush Admin said, "That damn Saddam. He's hiding them from us, and not giving us total access! He's got them! Lets go fuck 'em up!"

Anybody who says unjustified is a terrorist.

Please tell me that was satire, if not you should...:banghead:

[Spike Lee]

I supported this war back when it was being sold to us. It is now commonly accepted by many that his war was started under false pretenses. Not by the liberals or socialist, but by libertarians, conservatives, soldiers and researchers.

[_jax]

Fact: Saddam was a dick

Fact: We need oil, thank yourselves for that one, you want to be against the war? Stop driving your fucking car then.

Fact: We underestimated the sheer stupidity and evil of the Islamic world, no rational thinking would have thought that in face of freedom, oppertunity and charity they would resort to blowning themselves and each other up.shitty dictator? not our problem.

we need oil? shit i'd support it if they could get the price of gas back down below 2 dollars.

muslims blowing shit up? shit i couldve told u that

[Fungus Amungus]

Way to back it up with a good argument. It's common sense that the Kill to death ratio is astounding for war. That's why I focused my post to the moral stand point. Arguing over statistics is stupid on both sides.


Which is the way that it was. I backed it with credible and ligitmate sources.


It's backed both ways, it's a matter of opinion which one too believe. My stance was obvious.

Then why not go after North Korea? There was a lot more conclusive evidence to go after North Korea. But why didn't we? Why didn't we go after Syria or Libya? Again, we went to waR with intellegence that was not credible. If the president truly believed the horse shit that was "the smoking gun", then he is truly 100% deserving of all the jokes that make fun of his intellegence.

All countries had the intellgence to support intervention. It's suicide to go after so many countries all at once. If you watch ninja movies you see the badass of the story doesn't knockout a group of bullies all at once, they fight them one by one. The same is said with war. You have to put focus on one or two enemies at a time. That's why as much as I would like for those countries to be stopped, I don't want another war without this one ending.

Regarding the intellegence specifically to Saddam. Saddam would spread propaganda on his own people to say he has nukes and bio weapons to show he could defend the country. What better evidence is that? Right from the horses mouth. We called him on the bluff and look he lost. Also there has been dumped chemicals found all over Iraq. The thing is the UN doesn't classify a chemical a WMD unless it's barreled or in warhead form. Reason being those chemicals can be found naturally in some places of the world.

There was also a scientist working for Saddam that stole parts of nuclear research. He did this to fault the reasearch and he revealed his actions when the American forces took control of the area. He has written a book called "The Bomb in My Garden" and another book "Saddam's Bomb".




Oh fuck that, they have been refuted.

I was saying both sides of the arguement have reasons to support it and I was honoring that. You on the other hand responded with arrogance.


People support this war for a neoconservative agenda, oil, or ignorance.


Oh really? Well guess what you would be wrong. I support this war because I support the over throwing of Saddam and his sons. I also support the fact we stayed to rebuild the country. I am not a neoconservative and there is better ways to get oil than war. Infact I wish we didn't have to have war, but I believe this was a necessary evil. If we didn't deal with it now, we would've years from now.


Wrong wrong wrong. A foreign country was going in and toppling his government. If the same happened to us, we would not allow that.


This can be said about invasion. But, he was taunting us and if he was innocent then there would be no reason to suspect. Like I said he even told his own people he would use weapons on us.


Again, then why not intefere in Sudan with the Darfur genocide? Or liberate Cuba for once and for all?

It's the issue of spreading our forces to thin, also if the political focus is on Iraq or Afghanistan why invade Cuba? The general public vowed for Iraq. Also the UN classifies the incident in Darfur a ethnic cleansing, it needs to be a genocide to intervene. We could always say why didn't we attack countries at different times. Like why didn't we defend Europe when it needed our help in the late 30s? We didn't get invloved in WW2 tell we were attacked. We could do what ifs all day, but you can't change the decisions that were made then. We have to talk about what needs to be done now.

Since the conflict in Iraq is calm and the government has almost reached all it's benchmarks, this war should be over soon. I support finishing the war, because war gets everyone pissy. I also think we have alot of issues at home that the next president needs to focus on.

[LegendaryLink]

Unjustified and it distracted us from our real goal of catching Osama bin Laden. Instead of putting billions into tearing down and building Iraq back up, we should've focused on Afghanistan and catch the guys who took credit for 9/11.

[Zardozus]

Easily one of the WORST 'non-arguments' made by antiwar people is the rhetorical question:
Again, then why not intefere in Sudan with the Darfur genocide? Or liberate Cuba for once and for all?

The answer is so obvious and Fungus explains it already but its because you can't fight all wars at once.
You only have so many soldiers, so much money and so much time to act.

Iraq was a good one to do right now mainly because UN Forces were already in Afghanistan.
Also, Iraq has a big 'pay off' in terms of what can come out of the situation.

North Korea would be really difficult even if we were not busy in the ME and besides, North Korea has not gone ahead and Annexed one of our Allies and then attacked us when we tried to defend them.
Like Saddam did.

But to the fake question "It becomes acceptable as long as we invade EVERY nation?"
No.
This would be as stupid as punching out the threatening asshole who beats up your friends at the bar and Spike Lee asking "So why not pick fights with ALL the people at all the different bars who do that huh?"
Because you aren't Superman is why.
Simple as that.

[terror6o4]

unjustified, we have no business there. let them decide whats best for them

[Zardozus]

I'm not being a smartass when I ask these questions here but... does everyone understand that:

-Saddam's Iraq did something called 'Annex' one of our Allies Kuwait. This means he simply invaded and took over their country. It was horrific.

-When the US and other UN Nations went to help Kuwait, Saddam then started shooting and killing US forces who tried to stop them.

-That instead of actually defeating Saddam (like would be the usual case) Bush Sr actually STOPPED Counter-Invading Iraq UNDER THE CONDITION THAT SADDAM PROVE TO US HE DID NOT HAVE WMDS.
REPEAT: The COUNTER-Invasion was STOPPED AS LONG as Saddam PROVED TO US he did NOT have WMD's.
REPEAT THIS - It was SADDAMS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE WMDS!
or else,
The COUNTER-Invasion could CONTINUE.

-Saddam deliberately decided to BREAK THAT DEAL and STOPPED anyone from finding out whether or not he had WMDS.
You know.. like THE KIND HE ATTACKED OUR ALLIES WITH.

-Saddam was a horrific mass murderer who not only had chemical wmd weapons but slaughtered whole villages of men women and children with said chemical weapons.
Really.
Do NOT FUCKIN DEMAND SOME 'SOURCE' on that because it will only prove you are 17 and dont have a fucking clue about horrific public news events that happened just a few years ago.

Now Im only asking you know these things FIRST before you go ahead and decide you can determine what is justified or not.

To my absolute horror I have had conversations with SEVERAL college students who did not ( I swear this is shockingly true) but did NOT know that Iraq INVADED KUWAIT,
and,
They actually did not understand that the counter-attack was ceased on conditions that Saddam prove he did NOT have WMD's.
Yikes.
If you do not know that then PLEASE STAY IN SCHOOL or read a book or something before you say one bleeping word about the current Iraq counter-invasion.

[camjoe87]

Does anyone else find it odd that we are occupying two countries that just so happen to border Iran? I know that's not a point that's being brought up very often.

I guess it's either odd .... or convenient.

But to stay on topic, I was all for the war back when it was being sold to us. But now, it's pretty clear to see that there was other motivation to engage in a war with Iraq, other than these non-existant WMDs.

[Duke Dicky]

It should be called the war in Afghanistan. There was no reason to move into Iraq. We brought this war to the Iraqi citizens and destabilize their government. Over one million Iraqi civilians are dead because of the twisted logic our president used to cross boarders. This war in Iraq is completely and utterly unjustified.

[Fungus Amungus]

It should be called the war in Afghanistan. There was no reason to move into Iraq. We brought this war to the Iraqi citizens and destabilize their government. Over one million Iraqi civilians are dead because of the twisted logic our president used to cross boarders. This war in Iraq is completely and utterly unjustified.


One million? Try 88,000~

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Bergs]

I'm not being a smartass when I ask these questions here but... does everyone understand that:

No I don't understand that because many of those statements are either half-truths or outright lies.

-That instead of actually defeating Saddam (like would be the usual case) Bush Sr actually STOPPED Counter-Invading Iraq UNDER THE CONDITION THAT SADDAM PROVE TO US HE DID NOT HAVE WMDS.
REPEAT: The COUNTER-Invasion was STOPPED AS LONG as Saddam PROVED TO US he did NOT have WMD's.
REPEAT THIS - It was SADDAMS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE WMDS!
or else,
The COUNTER-Invasion could CONTINUE.

First of all, when you capitalize every other word, your intent to highlight some point is completely lost in the reader hostile jumble and only really demonstrates that your argument is incapable of standing on its own.

Second of all, that is an outright lie. Here, watch 1994 Dick Cheney explain why we didnt go into Iraq in 1991.http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk 1994 Cheney was smart.

There was never going to be a counter-invasion and the only UN resolution that put the responsibility on Saddam Hussein was 1441. At that time, it was estimated by anybody who was actually in the know at the UN that approximately 95% of all WMDs had been destroyed, with 100% being an impossible number to determine because Iraq had eliminated some supplies on its own and claimed that they never existed. He was absolutely zero threat to the United States of America. That is the standard, not what international law allows or forbids. Not that that matters much to you anyway. You apply international law when it suits you and dismiss it when its an inconvenience.

-Saddam deliberately decided to BREAK THAT DEAL and STOPPED anyone from finding out whether or not he had WMDS.
You know.. like THE KIND HE ATTACKED OUR ALLIES WITH. Saddam Hussein never used WMDs on US allies. There are no recorded instances of their use in Kuwait. All recorded instances of their use were against the Iranians, with instances of intelligence support from the CIA, and against his own people, most recently in the 1991 uprising following the Persian Gulf War.

Like it or not, Saddam Hussein was a stablizing force in the region and he kept Iran in check. He was a secular dictator that was "distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline Taking him out was not only unjustified, but was simply a bad idea with unfavorable results for America, even absent a quagmire situation.

[Papero]

One million? Try 88,000~

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


I could SWEAR, I read on CNN or Fox like a year ago it was 760,000.

Or some other high number.

Perhaps I read very wrong.

[Jenovah]

I could SWEAR, I read on CNN or Fox like a year ago it was 760,000.

Or some other high number.

Perhaps I read very wrong.

It was probably 76,000, the site seems to be pretty legit.

[Fungus Amungus]

There was a study funded by a liberal billionare that said the death toll was 650,000. Then the Iraqi Body Count site came up and was not biased and actually had better research.

[painfulogic]

Debating over how many are dead to decide if it was justified or not? :err:

I know the news makes this shit seem like some kind of movie or game to you kids but it's not. These are real lives, and it's hilarious that you believe anything you think or feel about it is actually relevant in anyway. People are dieing for money, nothing could be more wrong and unjustified.

Anyone that thinks this war is justified, place contact your local military recruitment offices.

[Fungus Amungus]

Debating over how many are dead to decide if it was justified or not? :err:

I know the news makes this shit seem like some kind of movie or game to you kids but it's not. These are real lives, and it's hilarious that you believe anything you think or feel about it is actually relevant in anyway. People are dieing for money, nothing could be more wrong and unjustified.

Anyone that thinks this war is justified, place contact your local military recruitment offices.

You better not accuse me of that bullshit. I was just pointing out that the 1 million death toll was a lie.

[ROFLStomp]

Justified. Personally I believe that the US did the right thing and toppled an evil dictator in the Middle East. He was killing people and was a threat to us, plain and simple. People whine about how we are not supposed to be there and if we attack one evil, we have to attack it all (etc, Darfur). People seem to forget that A) It is not reasonable to do that all at once, and B), the same shit would be said about Darfur if it turned into the "quagmire" that some people like to call Iraq. Plain and simple. People are mostly all talk and no bite, they want to change the world and think it will be easy as taking candy from a baby.

(Not that I'm saying the Iraq war is) but people who say attacking a country for money is like some of war-crime haven't really studied history then. A country attacks another country for the benefit of itself. Surprise kids. I especially like how many people from Europe attack America for being the police of the world but don't bother to look at their country's history. Lets look how European foreign intervention shaped the history of Africa, hrm?

[Spike Lee]

The people that said that we could not invade other countries, because we didn't want to spead ourselves thin, completely missed the point. The point was if we did decide to go and topple Iraq in order to liberate the people, why didn't we go and do that to other countries? Again, it would not be Iraq and Cube and Sudan at the same time. NOT AT THE SAME TIME. The reason we never decided to invade these countries is because that was never our agenda. The current administration kicked that reason around at the beginning as another reason to invade. When their bullshit failed to pan out, they made this their vocal justification. Again, the intellegence that said Iraq was after yellowcake and tubes was not enough and found to be insufficient by the CIA months before Bush made the claims that Iraq had such intent.

[pinger]

Justified. Personally I believe that the US did the right thing and toppled an evil dictator in the Middle East. He was killing people and was a threat to us, plain and simple.
(

Such bullshit. He was contained.

He could not even hit neighbouring Kuwait accurately with the Scud missile. They were a big, unguided failure, not to mention most of them were knocked out by Gulf1. Iraq had no air force to speak of.

Suggesting somehow that Saddam had capabilities to strike the US is delusional wanderings of the highest order. Were they going to invade with a couple of million stealth canoes or something?

[ROFLStomp]

Such bullshit. He was contained.

He could not even hit neighbouring Kuwait accurately with the Scud missile. They were a big, unguided failure, not to mention most of them were knocked out by Gulf1. Iraq had no air force to speak of.

Suggesting somehow that Saddam had capabilities to strike the US is delusional wanderings of the highest order. Were they going to invade with a couple of million stealth canoes or something?

Yeah, your're right. Iraq is just like Afghanistan... what on earth could they do to us? Bunch of Opium farmers and Sherpas...its not like they have done anything to us.....

And then with the evil dictator part. Everyone whines and bitches about Darfur and crap. How is this affecting us? Who gives a flying sh1t if Africans are being killed by genocide, as long as its not us good ol Americans.

We should have let Saddam and every other dictator just sort things out like Hitler did with the jews. Everything turned out fine, they made up...right?

[Duke Dicky]

I could SWEAR, I read on CNN or Fox like a year ago it was 760,000.

Or some other high number.

Perhaps I read very wrong.

Washington Post, 655,000 in 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html


"The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet."

[LegendaryLink]

Yeah, your're right. Iraq is just like Afghanistan... what on earth could they do to us? Bunch of Opium farmers and Sherpas...its not like they have done anything to us.....

And then with the evil dictator part. Everyone whines and bitches about Darfur and crap. How is this affecting us? Who gives a flying sh1t if Africans are being killed by genocide, as long as its not us good ol Americans.

We should have let Saddam and every other dictator just sort things out like Hitler did with the jews. Everything turned out fine, they made up...right?

Is that a good reason for putting more resources into Iraq than finding the guy who actually took credit for killing 3000+ Americans? Why the fuck did our government decide that Saddam was more important than bin Laden? Did Saddam plan the attacks on 9/11? Were they carried out by Iraqis? NO. There are hundred of dictators in the world, genocide goes on in the world not only in Iraq. Why did we decide to pick a fight with another guy if we were on the tail on Public Enemy #1?


[edit] not exactly directed to just ROFL

[Fungus Amungus]

Duke that survey was funded by a liberal. It was extremely biased and wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead...

[Frosty]

Justified. Personally I believe that the US did the right thing and toppled an evil dictator in the Middle East. He was killing people and was a threat to us, plain and simple. People whine about how we are not supposed to be there and if we attack one evil, we have to attack it all (etc, Darfur). People seem to forget that A) It is not reasonable to do that all at once, and B), the same shit would be said about Darfur if it turned into the "quagmire" that some people like to call Iraq. Plain and simple. People are mostly all talk and no bite, they want to change the world and think it will be easy as taking candy from a baby.


Unjustified, merely because of the fact that President Bush couldn't come outright and say that Iraq was being invaded to "[topple] an evil dictator." No, the Bush administration tried and tried again to make ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even though there were none. The WMD story didn't pan out either because Iraq had none. But apparently continually saying the words 9/11, Iraq and WMDs in the same sentence got the approval of most of the American public and he went to war.

[Awesome-o]

Unjustified, merely because of the fact that President Bush couldn't come outright and say that Iraq was being invaded to "[topple] an evil dictator." No, the Bush administration tried and tried again to make ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even though there were none. The WMD story didn't pan out either because Iraq had none. But apparently continually saying the words 9/11, Iraq and WMDs in the same sentence got the approval of most of the American public and he went to war.

FOR TRUE

The truth has been spoken of for true and in utter totality.

[Duke Dicky]

Duke that survey was funded by a liberal. It was extremely biased and wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece

I read your link. It pretty much says what you're saying. It was funded by a liberal thus it must be wrong. Amazing logic really. I'm sorry, but I'm much more interested in the reasons why the methodology is wrong rather than carrying about what political affiliation the funders were.

[KakUMei]

It is not that simple of a question.

Bad Thread.

[Fungus Amungus]

I read your link. It pretty much says what you're saying. It was funded by a liberal thus it must be wrong. Amazing logic really. I'm sorry, but I'm much more interested in the reasons why the methodology is wrong rather than carrying about what political affiliation the funders were.

They "interview" a little over a thousand people and took what they said and porportioned it to cover the populus of Iraq. Which is absolute bullshit. The link I posted to Iraq Body Count is an anti-war site. They atleast don't lie about information, unlike Soros.

http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2008/01/my_article_on_n.html

That article explains how absurd the 650,000 number is... "Lancet 2006 attributed an amazing 166 deaths on average per day to car bombings alone from June 2005-June 2006. These bombings are fastidiously reported in the U.S. media and Wikipedia keeps a list of the major ones. Yet the highest single-day car bomb total Wikipedia records (114) is 42 short of Lancet's alleged average. Lancet's daily car bomb victim average is also 111 more than Iraq Body Count figure for war-related deaths from all causes. How could IraqBodyCount miss all those bodies?"

[Dayve]

Numbers do not = success. Sun Tzu said it himself, and it has been proven so many times in history that it is practically unquestionable fact.

[Fungus Amungus]

I KNOW FOR FUCKS SAKE! I was pointing out that the study was a fuckin lie and all it did was to show failure. Just like numbers don't prove success nethier do they prove failure. Numbers are just statistics.

[Dayve]

I KNOW FOR FUCKS SAKE! I was pointing out that the study was a fuckin lie and all it did was to show failure. Just like numbers don't prove success nethier do they prove failure. Numbers are just statistics.

I was responding to Zardo... i don't need to quote him anymore, he knows when i'm speaking to him.

[Fungus Amungus]

I was responding to Zardo... i don't need to quote him anymore, he knows when i'm speaking to him.

My mistake. Next time please quote though. It was shortly after my post and I thought you were reffering to me.

[Zardozus]

I was responding to Zardo... i don't need to quote him anymore, he knows when i'm speaking to him.

Sorry, I just gloss over your posts assuming its something about how Christians murder and eat babies or some nonsense.

[Yuseke]

Sorry, I just gloss over your posts assuming its something about how Christians murder and eat babies or some nonsense.

You mean the same way how your posts state everything is taken out of context or anti-christian propaganda?

[Dayve]

He quoted me in his sig, i quoted him in mine. It must be love, love love.

[noxela]

Justified! but should not be too much!
I guess it's enough that US overthrown Iraq's government and not to the extent that Iraq is being controlled by US forces. At this time they should be left free to take care of themselves.

[Dickin Syder]

Justifyingly unjustifiable.

/thread/

[Mojoe77]

Unjustified. I don't know why we're in Iraq. One could argue because of the oil, but the United States buys most of their oil from Mexico and Canada. So if oil was the motivation, why didn't we invade one of those countries?

P.S. - I'm loving some of the liberal news links some of you are using for 'sources'.

[Nocturnal]

Question is way too vague.

Justified does not equal neccessary, urgent, intelligent, wise, good, etc.