Against Iraqi War, Against Iraqi Peace?

Does hatred for Bush lead to chaotic hopes for Iraq?

from JoeUser Forums

Lately, I've noticed much venom from the anti-war people concerning the war and occupation in Iraq. I understand their frustration with the lack of WMD stockpiles. It's completely valid to say that Bush exagerated the Iraqi threat. However, I don't understand what compels them to treat the war and occupation as a dismal failure, a complete mistake, inhumane, something that should have never happened, etc. The way they speak of the war and occupation leads me to believe that they want Iraq to be unstable and violent with casualties in the millions. Does their hatred for Bush prevent them from applauding the opportunity the Iraqis have?

I'm not saying that the left holds exclusive rights to desiring chaos. The Republicans might have also wished for chaos to consume Europe when Clinton sent forces to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. They might have also claimed that force was unnecessary and that the U.N. should have simply used sanctions. After the war was over and it was time to install stability into the region, they also might have continued to complain that the entire invasion was a dismal, illegal, and unethical failure. Of course, since I knew nothing of politics then, I don't know whether conservatives were as venomous as many of the liberals currently are.

I'm also not pretending that we fought the war in the name of the Iraqis, but the opposition wasn't acting in their interests either. Besides, results are more important then motives. When ones looks at how many lives might be saved by the investment of the U.S. and the other nations (and let's not pretend that people weren't dying under Hussein's regime), I don't see how the war could be seen as a bad thing. It's not as if the U.S. is more dangerous, considering that terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center before the war, which leads me to believe that the terrorists already hated us. It's also not as if less oppressive dictators in the world is a bad thing. It's also not the first or last time that the U.S. (or any other major country) forced its will onto other nations.

The benefits to the Iraqis don't justify the words Bush used to send us to war. People have many reasons to dislike Bush for the reasons he made to justify the war. However, I don't see how a war that gives democracy and freedom to oppressed people is considered a failure and a mistake by people other than isolationists.

politics
10,864 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
What your equation isn't taking into account is the election. People are really motivated right ow to put forward anything that can be used to smear the first term, and Iraq is going to be one of the biggies. It doesn't serve their purposes to admit that it is a good thing, because it would present an "ends might justify the means" arguement. They have to portray the ends as just as flawed as the means.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Joseph:
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S. and still has scars that have never been healed. The analogy is that Iraq has never had a democracy so has no democratic tradition. A vast underground of corruption both in terms of politics and crime exists. The U.S. will not send enough troops or do the right things to control the situation. Ultimately the people of the U.S. stop supporting our involvement and the government seeks to get out of the situation with the least number of casualties. This is a pattern many see happening.
The truth is that most Americans don't have the stomach for gradual change in an occupied country. "If the Iraqis don't want us there," they say "let's go home." U.S. soldiers are excellent in the art of war, not so good (in the public's opinion) for winning the peace.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Buu:
It's also not the first or last time that the U.S. (or any other major country) forced its will onto other nations.
True. However, by definition, one country 'forcing its will' on another is totally contrary to the concepts of 'democracy and freedom' you expect to come out of it.
Besides, results are more important then motives.
This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

CrispE:
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S.
I hear it wasn't very nice in Vietnam either.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."


I think you are confusing "motives" with "means".

Terrorists want Iraq to become another Palestine. Terrorism is a huge business, and another ineffectual government, ignorant people willing to blow themselves up, and a "cause" to rally around is just the thing to fill their coffers. The only solution is to irrevocably crush any semblance of these organizations.


Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
The benefits to the Iraqis


What is hypocritical of this war, is that the Iraqi people have no say in what is going on. The USA is dictating to them what is happening. This is contradictory to the supposed democracy and freedom they are now supposed to have. What brings this to light the best is the Iraqi soccer team story. When the news made them seem like newly freed grateful people, but said quite different things. The Iraqi opinions are largely ignored.

The motive of the war is also questionable. At first the reason was to stop a threat, and then the reason changed because a country was liberated. Well, which was it? Many have accused the White House for this all being over oil and corporations like Halliburton making lots of money by rebuilding Iraq, and it's the Tax payer who pays the bill.

If the motive was to really liberate Iraq, what about other opressed countries? Isn't the same thing happening in the Sudan and parts of Africa? Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?

The capture of Saddam is a great thing, but I question the motivation for attacking Iraq. I also question what Iraq will end up being.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
The people in Iraq don't want democracy. This will be proven should we ever leave the region. They are a religious people in a religious land and for them to become as secular as us is a pipe dream only achievable by our continued presence and indoctrination of them. We are also creating an itch for the middle eastern world by putting our foot in their house. Look at our soldiers attacked every day, how long until the need to scratch comes within our door many times over? If Americans are interested in deterring terrorists from attacking us, let us find a more imaginative and effective way. Finally, most Americans aren't seeing the dangers of the war only because they don't have family or friends on the frontline or because they aren't there themselves. What is Iraqi peace? The freedom to live as they want, without us, and I am sure the inverse is true. This is isolationist, but let us not stir the hornet's nest.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


What good resulted out of the Holocaust? As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some still do believe that it was better than a battle that possibly would have taken many more lives.


What is hypocritical of this war, is that the Iraqi people have no say in what is going on. The USA is dictating to them what is happening. This is contradictory to the supposed democracy and freedom they are now supposed to have. What brings this to light the best is the Iraqi soccer team story. When the news made them seem like newly freed grateful people, but said quite different things. The Iraqi opinions are largely ignored.


The US never said that the Iraqis would have democracy and freedom immediately, right? It takes awhile to stabilize a nation. We don't want to leave them on their own just to let them fall into a situation.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Look at our soldiers attacked every day, how long until the need to scratch comes within our door many times over?


As I said, 9/11 happened before we entered Iraq. We've pissed them off a long time ago. What more can we do? Piss them off? In fact, it seems that everybody's pissing them off these days, not just those involved with Iraq.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
The US never said that the Iraqis would have democracy and freedom immediately, right? It takes awhile to stabilize a nation. We don't want to leave them on their own just to let them fall into a situation.

If I remember correctly, over 10,000 South Africans died during the years following it's abolition of apartid...I'm just glad that it appears as though the transition in Iraq MIGHT be less messy than that one.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?


We decided to do it Kerry's way and let the French and UN take care of it. Look what happened, people beheaded infront of the UN compound and the French UN peace keepers didn't do a thing.

I remember a newspaper quote a Rhowanda Warlord "If a Frenchmen is killed in the jungle and there is knowone else there to hear it, will anybody care?"
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

If I remember correctly, over 10,000 South Africans died during the years following it's abolition of apartid...I'm just glad that it appears as though the transition in Iraq MIGHT be less messy than that one.


I'm sure those who believe the invasion of Iraq was an absolute mistake that should have never happened will agree with me when I say that because 10,000 South Africans died, the abolition of apartheid was wrong.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not at all. The USA did not invade south africa though.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S. and still has scars that have never been healed


This is, in my opinion, a horrendous mistake. While I do not necessarily agree with the decisions made in Iraq, I feel that the comparison to Vietnam cheapens the lives lost in Vietnam and makes light of the prewar situation in Iraq. Saddam's regime was not a pleasant regime by any accounts; a wide variety of human rights organizations had this country on their watch list for years. The justifications for invading Iraq were at least as valid as our justifications for being in Bosnia or Yugoslavia.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
We decided to do it Kerry's way and let the French and UN take care of it. Look what happened, people beheaded infront of the UN compound and the French UN peace keepers didn't do a thing.


But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. What interests do Bush and Cheney have in Iraq?

I just don't take republican argument that we went into Iraq to liberate them seriously because there are other parts of the world with bloody dictators.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not at all. The USA did not invade south africa though.


But ten thousand people died. Those people wouldn't have died if they didn't bother ending apartheid.


But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. What interests do Bush and Cheney have in Iraq?

I just don't take republican argument that we went into Iraq to liberate them seriously because there are other parts of the world with bloody dictators.


Hussein was a thorn in our side.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. "


When, and where? Clinton said that intervening in Rwanda wasn't in US interests while the genocide was occuring, but I have no knowledge of Bush ever making such a comment. Care to back that up?

"What is hypocritical of this war, is that the Iraqi people have no say in what is going on. The USA is dictating to them what is happening."


The Iraqi people have a government, and they are now being led by them. The origanal governing council is now defunct, and a Parliament was chosen by 1300 delegates from around Iraq. They had their first meeting this week. The US isn't dictating anything at this point, other than working alongside the Iraqi government to secure the nation until they have the strength to hold control for themselves.

"Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?"


Clinton refused to intervene, and later called it a mistake, saying that had he chosen to he believed that he could have saved probably half the people who died. That would be mistake that caused the deaths of roughly 400,000 people. Kerry, I might add, along with many of his Democrat counterparts voted AGAINST the gulf war, AFTER Bush Sr. had gotten UN approval, build a coalition, and after Hussein had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. I think you can see a pattern of behavior with their party, and it rarely falls on international compassion.

"The people in Iraq don't want democracy. This will be proven should we ever leave the region. They are a religious people in a religious land and for them to become as secular as us is a pipe dream"


Iraq has been, and still is one of the most secular nations in the Arab world. As I said, they came together and formed a secular Parliament. Over and over they have shown that they do not want a religious state. Few in that region do, which is why bin Laden had to go to Afghanistan and why Iran has so little support from its Arab counterparts.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The role of the United States is not to go around helping the rest of the world by taking down their governments. First of all, it is shaky to say the least that this actually helps them. The USA Military is to be used for defense and security ONLY (as well as the defense and security of our close allies, or in a global conflict). That is it. We are not the police. We are not the World's gaurdian angel. We are a republic that should look out for the good of its citizens.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The role of the United States is not to go around helping the rest of the world by taking down their governments. First of all, it is shaky to say the least that this actually helps them. The USA Military is to be used for defense and security ONLY (as well as the defense and security of our close allies, or in a global conflict). That is it. We are not the police. We are not the World's gaurdian angel. We are a republic that should look out for the good of its citizens.


That might have been true before, but after World War II, almost every single battle fought involved an enemy that was no threat to us or our allies.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Some FYI Information about Rwanda with the quote from 10:
We decided to do it Kerry's way and let the French and UN take care of it. Look what happened, people beheaded infront of the UN compound and the French UN peace keepers didn't do a thing.

I remember a newspaper quote a Rhowanda Warlord "If a Frenchmen is killed in the jungle and there is knowone else there to hear it, will anybody care?"


Wasn't there a mercenary group of about a hundred people from a US Based Mercenary company keeping that nation in check, than the UN comes in and loads of Rwandans die, where as the Mercenaries had established peace but were chased out because the UN wanted to get involved. It was on the History Channel talking about Mercenaries throughout history and the modern day, can't remember exactly but I thought it was Rwanda, when I find out the name of the Mercenary group I will post some more information on it.

In reply to 17:
The role of the United States is not to go around helping the rest of the world by taking down their governments. First of all, it is shaky to say the least that this actually helps them. The USA Military is to be used for defense and security ONLY (as well as the defense and security of our close allies, or in a global conflict). That is it. We are not the police. We are not the World's gaurdian angel. We are a republic that should look out for the good of its citizens.


You know the United States has seriously tried this throughout our 1900 and on military history. Just like we tried to stay out of World Wars 1 and 2, but eventually got drawn in because of our allies. Because we are apart of the world we will help our Allies, including when it comes to SERIOUS UN action, otherwise few things will get done, can we name one place that the UN has taken care that the US did not get involved, and that's the problem, we are apart of the world's police, and the only way this will change is to pressure UN nations to send more power into UN actions so the US does not have to get involved with each one, the Rwandans is an example of the French failing with UN action in Rwanda. Also the excuse of not being the World's Guardian angel is just a dream which will never become reality unless some other country in the world becomes more of a bigger world power, military wise, that acts with the UN than us, it's sad but true. We tried to look after just our own citizens but that kind of reality will no longer work in a world where everybody is more connected than the past, we are a major power in the world, and sadly we must act for world, when the world's other nations WILL not step in.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then we must give our support to either all UN policies that the security council passes (which is kind of an obvious, considering the US has veto power on security council resolutions) or support none of them. Further, we must not ever, ever enter into military action without the UN's backing unless it is a direct and immediate measure to protect this country or a NATO country or one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china) or as a response to a military action against a trade partner and a member of the WTO (this would probbably be a UN move however).
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china)


Ohhh my God. I hope I didn't just see China.

Screeech, pulling whats left of my hair out!!!!!!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I made a mistake... whoops. I meant china to be part of the trade partner part, not allie..
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
Then we must give our support to either all UN policies that the security council passes (which is kind of an obvious, considering the US has veto power on security council resolutions) or support none of them. Further, we must not ever, ever enter into military action without the UN's backing unless it is a direct and immediate measure to protect this country or a NATO country or one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china) or as a response to a military action against a trade partner and a member of the WTO (this would probbably be a UN move however).


What kind of solution would you propse if the UN all votes to send U.S. troops as a part of a UN Peacekeeping force into a country, and the U.S. is against it, and even vetos it, what is the course of action than.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then we must give our support to either all UN policies that the security council passes (which is kind of an obvious, considering the US has veto power on security council resolutions) or support none of them. Further, we must not ever, ever enter into military action without the UN's backing unless it is a direct and immediate measure to protect this country or a NATO country or one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china) or as a response to a military action against a trade partner and a member of the WTO (this would probbably be a UN move however).


I think the US has followed such a policy ever since WW2.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
What kind of solution would you propse if the UN all votes to send U.S. troops as a part of a UN Peacekeeping force into a country, and the U.S. is against it, and even vetos it, what is the course of action than


The US has veto power over security council resolutions, and only the security council makes military resolutions.

I think the US has followed such a policy ever since WW2.


Entering Iraq was not UN backed. Nor was it in defense of ourself or our allies or our major trade partners against a military action.