messybuu messybuu

Against Iraqi War, Against Iraqi Peace?

Against Iraqi War, Against Iraqi Peace?

Does hatred for Bush lead to chaotic hopes for Iraq?

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.

10,865 views 27 replies
Reply #26 Top

We attacked Hussein because the US perceived him as a threat (which some believe was accurate). I also hear he wasn't cooperating with the UN as he should have. I personally think that's a better reason than cleaning up Europe's own mess because they're too incompetent to (i.e. Bosnia).


Although the US should take in mind international relations, sometimes it's necessary to do what's good for #1. Do we really want to be subservient to nations that could be described as supremely incompetent?

Reply #27 Top
if the UN all votes to send U.S. troops


Tthe UN can only vote to create a peace keeping mission. It's up to individual countries to volunteer troops. The UN cannot demand or take them.

Paul.