Refusing to go to War (edit)

[stefunny157]

Saddam was a danger. But he was put there by the very country that now went to war to get rid of him. Its kind of like:"Uups, WE made a mistake but lets let someone else pay for it !" Saddam was an ally of the US and GB before, all of a sudden he becomes a bad guy.



Did Saddam do anything in the last few years that even slightly pointed to him wanting to attack the US ? Did he have WMD's ? If I remember correctly the last time the Allies attacked Iraq (at that time just)-Gulf War 1991. So it felt more like unfinished business..this second attack. And the US own more weapons than all Middle Eastern countries combined. Who should we be more afraid of ? The US or the Middle East ?

 

[Nasia]

no, i meant the iraqis, of the entire iraqi population, 5% of them wanted saddam to stay and keep killing them and 95% of them wanted him out.

I assume you are not in the military, nor have you ever been in nor are planning to be in the militray, nor do you come from a military family? if you answered yes to these questions, then maybe you should rethink your views.

"we gave peace a chance, lets try war"- Major Eric jackson, 1st cavalry wartime strategist.

 

[JamilM]

In fairness if by 'we' you mean people who live somewhere like you do i.e. London you really don't need to be afraid of the US... A terrorist organisation from a Middle East country is more likely to attack London than the US government.

And tekkengod seeing as you have failed to provide any sources for your last batch of figures its quite difficult to take your 95% seriously... Im sure most Iraqi's are glad that Sadam's regime is out of power mind you but then as Matt pointed out this wasn't really the point of the US invasion. Remember that the US and the UN were quite happy to leave Sadam in power if he adhered to their weapons inspections so it would seem the war was never presented as a crusade to topple a ruthless dictator until no evidence of weapons that could pose a threat to the US were found.

 

[hellohowareyou]

I remember the story of some of the "human sheilds" returning from Iraq after a few days with totally diffrent views of the situation.

 

[SRBIJA10]

my source? you obviously haven't been paying much attention, remember the first gulf war, he gassed about 4,000 of his own troops just to test the effect.

there was a small town {about 5000 people} which dosen't exist anymore, you know why, he blew the hell out of it because they didn't agree with him and were revolting.

he killed people at random with no good reason other than boredom on a daily basis. hes a monster, he needed to be stopped, he needs to be publically humiliated and and executed, or even better handed over to the iraqis on a plate, let them torture, beat and kill him. he deserves it.

 

[DeadeSoul_697]

Why didn't we do something about this action during the Iran/Iraq war phase when we were providing him with the weapons and funds with which he was attacking his own people?

...Oh yeah, it was in our best national interest to turn a blind eye.

And how exactly did this make him worse than any of the other countless dictators that we ignore on a day to day basis?

...Because it isn't in our national interest to care.

Sadam was one in a long line of dictators who was killing his own people. Sadly, that's an act that most countries including our own don't care about.

READ THIS WELL... this never had anything to do with his attacks on the Iraqi people. Trying to justify it as that is just plain BS and ignorant. And this has been the same for any war we've been involved in. Protection of human life isn't the reason the US goes to war. It's a fact.

So do lots of other people, but we aren't taking military action against them. This wasn't about liberation. Don't use liberation to justify this action.

And I'm still waiting for a source on the 95% thing.

Oh... and before we go further... I have both family and friends who have served in the military so don't both going down that route.

- Matt

 

[iluvmyman]

Where did you get these figures from ? And ever think that the 5 % had no choice if there were killed or not and the 95 % had influence and maybe could have managed overthrowing him by themselves without the US helping ? We even see evidence now in some groups attacking US convoys. They were there before.



Actually, IF I was in the military or had a military background I might be so brainwashed I might believe all the US government or my coofftopicnder would tell me as the first thing you learn is to follow orders without questioning them. And thats something some military personal should maybe start to do. And actually, NO I'm not in the military and fairly glad I'm not too because I would have REFUSED to have gone to War in Iraq if my government would have asked me. Because none of the explanations to go to war made sense. And concering your quote: The US never gave peace in Iraq a chance otherwise why did you attack Saddam already in 1991 ? In fact, the way the US is handling disputes at this moment in time I wonder if there will ever be real peace again.

 

[EvilSandia]

There are many good soldiers who manage to disobey bad orders. Let's not start casting aspersions about people on the ground.

This is kinda ignorant. 1991 was a clear case of Iraq acting as an aggressor against a strategic adn economic ally. Beyond that, the US desperately hoped for an Iraqi rebellion that never happened.

Further the use of "again" suggests that there was ever peace to begin with. I will point out that your nation has dirtied it's hands as much as ours. I'm sure a number of people in Northern Ireland would have a lot to say about comments about "peace" and occupational forces.

 

[BirdogsID]

So, just what was the reason?




So what do you call 10 years of resolutions, chances, talks - not just by the US but the UN too. We tried to do thing without force, the US/UN gave him warning after warning, chance after chance. At some point you have to draw the line, otherwise the consequences of saying we will use force if you dont comply, then not doing so when they dont comply would have been big.

When would you have drawn the line - another 10 years... maybe 20?

 

[WrigleyC]

look, heres the main point, did we go there for oil? maybe, would that be a good thing? yes. did we go there to libeerate people? probably not, would that too be a good thing? yes. did we go there because we can? yes. reguardless of what any of us think, we are there and are going to stay there until we are satisfied, and a firm democracy and state of being has been established. PERIOD. i support the war. if you don't, ok. go hold a peace rally. the constitution allows it, but in bitching so much and refusing to go to war for your country may very well have given up your rights.
and you are absolutely right in the thought that we are going to do what we think is in our national interest, personally, we don't have much claim in anywhere else other than the middle east, we will most likely get their oil, do i believe that? no. but alot of the anti-war people do. so what? we are gonna do what will benifit us the most, as are the British, the Estonians and the other Coalition forces. SO WHAT? no one HONESTLY gives a rats ass about anyone elses causes, Britan dosen't care about us, they need a powerful ally, Russia dosen't give a damn about ANYONE, nor does france and germany, nor do we. we are all going to keep helping one another out though, because we all need each others help. period.

 

[Pez11]

And this is why the U.S. can never, ever win everybodys support. If the U.S. acts, the argument is they should not have invaded to liberate Iraq/protect U.S. because they did not act elsewhere as well at the same time or before? Does this make any sense at all? Anyone?

If they didn't do something in Africa, they should not do something in Iraq?? So, it is an all or nothing scenario. If you liberate Iraq, you should liberate Africa as well at the same time or before Iraq. Of course, if you had invaded Africa first to liberate people and stop genocide, then the question is why did you not liberate another Country first or at the same time...say Iraq perhaps?, so do that first. Wait, now we are stuck in a vicious Democrat of confusion...and nothing gets done. GREAT!!

So, where do you start, and where do you end? Come on anti-Bush people...bring the solution to the table rather than the arguments you keep hearing from other Democrats and spewing back to others. How to begin liberating countries from genocide, etc. while keeping everyone happy? Oh...is the answer to not do anything? And do you think this is a good answer? Remember...in law those who turn their back (does not try to get help, call police, etc) on someone getting murdered is (almost) as guilty as the murderer.

Can all victims be protected/liberated at all times all over the world? Of course not. Can it start somewhere? Of course it can. And if it so happens that there are also other reasons/interest which help dictate which victims get help first, does that make the help wrong? Not in my eyes...help is help, and those who have now been able to vote, those who can now go to school, work, learn, grow...I am sure they would agree with me. Those who would benefit from the repression and murder of their own people, they would disagree with me and would wish the U.S. never entered Iraq, and some of you are on their side...nice.

And in all of this bullcrap...why the heck do other countries, if they care so darn much, not get together and do something about the genocide in Africa and other places? I will tell you why...there is no cost/benefit for them to do so. They are scared to get involved. And does anyone talk about this? No, the total focus is on how the U.S. should not have done anything to start liberating the weak and how even though they should not be liberating Iraq, they should be liberating Africa as well, at the same time or before. Crap, this stuff irks me to no end!

 

[Gartomity]

Ok... In response to a number of posts (and because this is getting to the circular arguement) let me explain where I'm coming from:

I'm a social scientist amoung other things. So I look at these things from a number of perspectives.

The issue that I have with the arguement of liberation as why we're there is that is BS. It's mixing up a result with causes. Much like saying the reason we went to war with Germany in WWII was because of the Holocaust. It's just not accurate and causes people to miss what is actually going on. Propogating those stories is being a shoddy citizen.

We're in the Middle East for security, but not because of an Al Quieda connection. Were WMD a part of it? Yes, but they weren't the only reason. It comes down to four things:

1. Establishing a permenant base in the central continent that isn't in Saudi Arabia
2. Controlling Iran (who is/was actively persuing Nuclear weapons and on a track that was much faster than Iraq... note the fact that we have them surrounded on all sides - Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan).
3. Controlling Syria (who Iraq also borders... note all the stuff going on with Lebenon now)
4. Installing a democracy in hopes of destabilizing the region and causing internal democratic rebellions

There you have it folks. This entire thing was political long ball (and this is stuff that the neo-con intellectuals have been publishing on since the mid 90s... the same folks who are in the Bush admin).

Oil isn't a big issue. Like liberation it's more of a side benefit.

Here's my issue... none of the above were the reasons that the war was sold to us. Why? Because all of those involve maintaining a long term military force in Iraq. Instead this was termed in the idea of an in and out opperation. Very few people were talking about the decade long committment (at the very least) that we were getting ourselves into. Why? Because there wouldn't have been as much support. Instead they went for the easy manipulation and then retro explained the action with terms like liberation after the hoped for smoking guns disappeared.

Note: I also feel that we need to keep our forces there at this point. You can't destablilize a region and then walk away. But, sadly, I won't be surprised if we eventually march on Iran.

The fact is that in hindsight you can justify anything. But rarely in these cases are the justifications the actual reason for first being there.

On the Sudan thing, again, if we're claiming humanitarian intervention then we need to acknowledge that there are lots of spots that we are ignoring. That should serve as proof to most people that humanitarian purposes isn't our actual intent.

Again, there is nothing wrong with national security. BUT (and I know this is a pipe dream) it would be nice if our government didn't insult our intellegence and actually told us the reasons why we're doing what we're doing. And it would also be nice if they not only planned for war but also planned for peace in a way that worked.

- Matt

 

[RahrahAngel]

You rock, Matt.

 

[GeorgeR]

What did Bill Clinton do to impose his views on the Middle East? He pretty much let the Middle East do its own thing for 8 years so why were we still attacked(twice while he was president)? Its easy to say that I would ahve never provoked anyone and therefore I would never end up in this situation. But thats not realistic we are where we are and we have been attakced and all the wishfull thinking wont change that. Why cant you see that we tried it your way for 8 years and where did it get us? Nowhere. I have mentioned this many times and you keep glossing over this fact. Do you have a response to the fact that we tried your way isnt it possibly time to try another?

 

[IronMonkey]

I'd told myself i wasn't going to post on this thread because it gets no where, but thats a damn good paragraph that people should take note of and i thought it deserved recognition.

I don't agree with about 99% of what you've said, but i do agree with that paragraph. At least theres none of the "good guy/bad guy" pretentions.

Also while im at it, i don't think the country/personal self defence analogy really works. Simply put, because when two people hit each other, it only really results in an "Ow, that hurts", but when two countrys 'hit' each other it results in 3000 or so people dying.

A bruise and 3000 deaths cant be put on the same scale, however big the scale is. A punch can be ignored/forgiven whatever, while a country can't ignore 3000 of its citizens dying.

 

[shahidsms]

What would be your opinion if the US decided not to enter Iraq in the first place, only then to hear about how Saddam and his regime continuing to torture and kill people.

Sure bet people would condemn America for not stopping this when they had the chance!

Or what if America decided to quit Iraq and remove the troops from the country – just as the anti-war people want! – then to hear that the terrorists still in the country have risen and taken control, killed thousands of people.

How many people would blame America for those deaths. Probably those who wanted them to leave in the first place!

 

[jmanlefty]

After reading all of this I hope not all people display the same arrogance and ignorance as you in your country.

 

[StillJustAGirlfriend]

Homer was that aimed at me? i dont think it was but just checking.

I wouldn't call what he said ignorance or arrogance. What he said pretty much summed up the Political theory called Realism (well, the second half of his post did), that a lot of Political scientists agree with. It basically does away with all ideas that morals have anything to do with politics and says that all countries will ultimately do only whats best for themselves. Its unfortunate that the world is like this, but i think its true.

 

[SherryB]

**Or what if America decided to quit Iraq and remove the troops from the country – just as the anti-war people want! – then to hear that the terrorists still in the country have risen and taken control, killed thousands of people.

How many people would blame America for those deaths. Probably those who wanted them to leave in the first place!**

Would you guys stop blabbering on about terrorists being in Iraq !!! The only people at the moment in Iraq bombing soldiers are poeple pissed off with US soldiers being in the country. And just because they are from the Middle East doesn't automatically make them terrorists....and just to remind everyone once again, it were Osama Bin Laden's ppl who flew into the Twin Towers not someone under Saddam. This only shows how brainwashed you ppl seem to be, regurgitating stuff you have heard on CNN. We all have a brain for a reason, to think about what we hear and to evaluate if its true....so use it !

 

[drakelrandom07name]

Ok, Punisher, you seem like a nice guy... but this doesn't make any sense.

1. more than soldier are getting attacked, killed, etc. Numerous officials in the publicly elected government have been targeted as well. So you're already grossly over generalizing.

2. Being from the middle east doesn't make them terrorists. Their tactics do and these people are engaging specifically in terrorist tactics. They are choosing symbolic and public targets with the intention of inspiring terror.

3. The goals isn't simply that they want the americans out. If so they wouldn't be going after governement and other public institutions. The goal is to get the americans out so they can install a specific type of oppressive governement (one more arranged along a specific set of secular lines/dictatorship).

Everyone engaged in this discussion really needs to take steps to post as much with their brain as their heart. Otherwise it devolves into a sad state of "he said, she said."

- Matt