Americans support Iraq as Revenge or they are misled

I couldn’t come up with a really handy title for what I’m about to say.

In reading various political threads, most recently the “Why Should I Vote For Bush”, it is offered by the Bush supporters that, contrary to the beliefs and feelings of many of us, large numbers of Americans support the Iraq war. Polls bear this out.

The question I have is: Why?

One of the posters in that thread said something to the effect of “Isn’t the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?”, as though that is why people should and do feel that the war was justified.

Well, first of all, it is yet to be seen whether the world is going to be a better place without Saddam. There is no question that he was a sick, murdering fuckhead that spread much misery in his country. But I know most Dopers are familiar with the idea of “The Devil you know…” The men and women governing the world, now and in the past, are very clear about this concept. Frequently it is better to accept and deal with someone who is unquestionably horrible, because the alternative is worse, and we can rarely foresee with any accuracy what the alternative will be. In the case of Iraq, while it may not be another murdering fuckhead, the country may just end up imploding on itself.

But that is a whole debate unto itself, and it is not the point I wish to discuss.

My point is this: it is ridiculous to claim or believe that the average American who does support this war does so because they wanted to see “Saddam Hussein - Murdering Fuckwit” ousted from power. At least, not as everyone now knows him to be: harmless to all except his own people.

Let me restate: I do not believe that more than, say, 12 Americans care enough about Saddam Hussein’s evil deeds within his own country to send American troops to stop him. And any claim to the contrary must be greeted with the obvious: If it was all about getting rid of the Bad Man, when will we be riding to the rescue in in the rest of the world? Hmm?

Therefore, Americans who support this war did so under false pretenses of one sort or another, or simply because they needed an outlet for revenge.

They support this war because:

a) They bought the Administration’s lies about WMD, now shown to be entirely, nearly laughably false. (I would laugh, except there are American families who won’t be laughing for a long time to come.)

b) They internalized the Administration’s lies and innuendo about a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, which was ALWAYS known to be false.

c) They were pissed off and freaked out about 9/11, and they needed to hurt SOMEBODY. Saddam, because we had fought him in the past, made a decent punching bag to work out our frustrations upon. He was also made a good punching bag precisely because he was so very toothless.

I cannot think of a reasonable fourth possiblity, can anyone else?

I would furthter offer that hardly anyone would have accepted the first two reasons if 9/11 had never occurred. So it really comes down to 9/11 in the end.

Given that items a & b are all about lies, and 3 is just really bad bahavior, isn’t it time that those who supported this war initially withdraw their support, if not from the war effort itself (since now we’re there…), at least from the man and the people who put us in such a position? Who told you those lies? Who didn’t have better sense than you and pandered to your base instinctual desire to strike out at someone? Who, rather than leading us to the best, healthiest, safest, most productive response, wasted resources and lives leading us to the worst? Isn’t at what we have leaders * for? *

And aren’t any of you “early adopters” (as it were) * pissed off? * I sure as hell would be!

This obviously isn’t a clear cut debate, per se, just a discussion about a hot topic that I didn’t want to turn into a Pit rant.

It’s a difficult enough thing to admit having been wrong. It’s painful, and impossible for some, to admit having been fooled. That implies that you’re foolish. It’s much easier to look for some reason to claim that the fooling didn’t happen at all, or that it was in a good cause, or that at least some good has come of it that made it worthwhile.

We needed Bush to grow into his job, and quickly, after 9/11. We needed to be confident that he could respond adequately. The wish is father to the thought, after all, and it was only one small step from wanting to believe he had a clue to believing he did. Some here have shown enough strength of character to admit that, many more have simply shut up, some are insisting “ad nauseam” that it was worth it no matter the facts, and that’s just among the GD participantship.

An editorial of the Star Tribune is to the point:

I think it’s because most people believe that just because something is unpleasant, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That, combined with the fact that Saddy’s boys have been shooting at our boys ever since the sanctions were applied… if any other country on the planet tried that, it’d take a lot less than a decade for the US war machine to spring into action.

The short answer, of course, is that most Americans do not accept the false dilemma into which you would like to shoehorn the question.

You are taking it for granted that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, and that therefore any military action against Iraq is unjustifiable. The trouble being, as before, you are forgetting that hindsight is 20/20.

Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Madelaine Albright, etc., are all clearly on record that
[ul][li]They believed that Iraq had or was trying to obtain WMD[/li][li]That the evidence of this was strong enough to justify military action[/li][li]That action stronger than had been taken so far was necessary to enforce the inspection regime. In Clinton’s case, it was bombing, which was supported by Hilary et al. [/ul][/li]Now, either Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Madelaine Albright, etc., are all liars just as much as Bush, or all of them are basing their beliefs on the best evidence available at the time. Since the Left showed nowhere near as much hysteria over the bombing of Iraq by Clinton, and since it seems clear that there is no evidence of WMD or its absence now available that was not available when Bill was President, the obsessive repetition of “Bush is a liar!” seems to be motivated by something other than consistent conviction.

Therefore, I expect that most of the American public does not share your double standard. If they are willing to assume that Clinton acted in good faith in bombing Iraq based on a stated belief that Saddam had or wanted WMD, they are equally willing to assume that Bush also acted in good faith. Indeed, Bush had much better reason to act (since 9/11 raised awareness of the threat posed by global terrorism) and Clinton’s bombing seems likely to be motivated more by a desire to wag the dog on the eve of his impeachment than any real geo-strategic considerations.

We are doing so already. Indeed, if it helps at all, that is partly what we were doing when we overthrew Saddam.

See, Osama bin Laden is a Bad Man. He was working with a bunch of other Bad Men in the Taliban. Saddam is a Bad Man. So is Ghaddafi. So is Kim of North Korea. All these are Bad Men. All of them present a threat to us and to our allies, either now or in the past or (if we do nothing) in the future. So we are “riding to the rescue”, and with an urgency that nobody felt before 9/11. No, they were not all involved in 9/11. But they all can plausibly be considered a threat to the US and its allies, either now or in the future. So Bush is acting.

I realize, of course, that this is all going to bounce off the armor-plating of your invincible hatred of all things Republican. And God knows it would be foolish of me to be surprised at the less amusing forms of moral hypocrisy by the Lunatic Left, especially during an election year.

But the bottom line is that most of America is not a pack of partisan hysterics with no clue about genuine geo-political realities. Disappointing to you, I know.

Regards,
Shodan

Sorry, but Sadam’s armed forces were shooting at us ever since the no fly zones were put into place. These were not a UN mandate, but something the US and UK did on their own. As for other countries, I hope they would start shooting if we were flying armed war birds over their heads without permission.

Option 4: The Middle East is a fucked-up region. It has been fucked-up for fifty years, and all our effort to fix it by talking intently with people, consulting their feelings, and then throwing money at them has resulted in…

Islamic fanatics declaring war on us and blowing up our buildings.

Ergo, the Middle East needs to be fixed, brought to a point where it is not a series of dictatorships that fuel hatred against the United States to divert hatred against the dictatorships. When Middle-Easterners feel comfortable enough with their own life that giving it up in a suicide attack is viewed as less worthwhile than actually enjoying life, that’s when al-Qaieda ends.

Invading Iraq and putting a free government in there is the first step.

Shodan, no, it is no longer debateable (although you would like it to be, no doubt) that Bush lied when he said he knew that bad shit was there and a real danger to us. All the other people who thought that was probably the case don’t matter. They didn’t start the war. He did. Got it?

You use the same technique in listing all those Bad Men as equal. They aren’t. Most haven’t attacked us. Saddam did not. Ghadafy did, and he’s being coddled. Bin Laden did, and he isn’t even being seriously looked for. The guys who have attacked us are the ones we needed, and need, to go after. Got it?

John C, it’s a very great leap from what we’ve done in Iraq so far to the establishment of a government which can be reliably and predictably better than what’s gone on before - that is, unless we’re prepared to keep it a garrison while claiming it’s free and locally ruled, like Britain tried and failed to do in India. It’s an especially great leap for a government that doesn’t even have the beginnings of a plausible, informed plan to do so.

If the IGC gets its way and instates Sharia law, Iraqi women are likely to find themselves worse off than they were under Saddam:

Iraqi plan for Sharia law ‘a sop to clerics’, say women

As Shodan has already pointed out, the error is in thinking that everybody has or had “a” reason. Many reasons were given why the war could be a good idea, and many reasons were offered as to why it might not be. Some of us were even capapble of agreeing with views on both sides. My own list included, but was not limited to (in no order) :

PRO:
1 Saddam thought to have or be working on WMD
2 Saddam had ties to terrorism, perhaps even to Al Quaeda
3 Possibility of taking out Saddam deterring other rogue regimes
4 Worsening human rights problem
5 Possibility of creating a model for liberalization in the Middle east
6 Possibility of demoralizing fundamentalist terrorists

CON:
7 Possibility of massive casualties, either US or civilian
8 Possibility of a larger war erupting in the region
9 Possibility of long-term entanglement
10 Pissing off third parties (France, etc)
11 Possibility of energizing fundamentaist terrorists

and so on. I weighed all those things in my mind and the Pros came out heavier. Obviously, at this point some of the things have not happened – (1, 7 and 8); some have (# 3); some things happened part-way – the first part of #2 was true, the second half turned out not to be; and the rest it’s too early to tell (5 and 9).

For some people, the WMD was the sole or decisive factor, and those may well feel that they were in error. For me, and others, it was one among many elements. If there were no WMD AND some of the other negative possibilities had happened, I’d very likely feel different than I do now.

Again, a false dilemma. It’s never “all about” any one thing.

Americans are sympathetic to the situation of oppressed peoples, but don’t like losing US lives or the lives of innocents if/when a GloboCop mission blows up in your face as they often do. If there was a guarantee of minimal civilian and US casualties every time, I think most people would favor taking out North Korea, Iran, etc. Certainly I would; but there isn’t, so I don’t.

OTOH, if we take out one of those regimes for other reasons, I have no problem being glad that the stopping of “evil deeds” is a side benefit. Or, as is always going to be the case in the real world, ALL the factors get mixed in and you make your choice.

Okay so far. But…

absolutely does not follow, and this is the utterly false equation that we were fed and you obviously swallowed.

Not all people in the middle east are suicidal Islamic fundamentalists. Not all countries are filled with suicidal Islamic fundamentalists. However, some are… * ** BUT IRAQ ISN’T ONE OF THEM. ** *

So your premise crumbles like dust.

What else you got?

You are wrong here, and that exact issue will lose the Democrats the '04 presidential race if that is their hinge factor. If it were true, the impeachment proceedings would be underway as we speak (or write). You, my friend, are simply unable to view the world thru anything except your partisan colored glasses.

Then I assume you agree that it is no longer debatable that Bill and Hilary, Gore, Gephardt, Albright, Clark, Kerry, etc., all lied. And that all of them should be condemned for supporting military action based on those lies. And Gore should have been condemned in the same terms during the 2000 campaign. And Hilary and Wesley Clark should be condemned in the same terms now.

But I don’t hear any of those things happening. Why would that be?

And this stuff about “Bush started a war, so only that counts” is moral nonsense. Clinton bombed Iraq, killing Iraqis, and lied about his motives (presuming that anyone who says Iraq had WMD was lying). The difference between bombing a country and conquering it is one of degree, not kind. The Iraqis (and Somalis) who died at Clinton’s hand are just as dead, and (presuming that anyone who says Iraq had WMD was lying) Clinton is just as much a liar as Bush. Hilary, Clark, and some others are much worse, since they lied about the invasion of Iraq led by Bush. Therefore, they are complicit in both the lies and wrongful attacks made by Bill, and in the wrongful attacks by Bush (presuming that anyone who says Iraq had WMD was lying).

For Bush and the rest to be lying, they must have been conscious that their statements that Iraq had or was trying to acquire WMD were false. Therefore, there must have been information available to them that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam did not have WMD. (Please note that wrong information that he did possess such weapons does not establish that he had none. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) You need to present clear evidence, available before the invasion of Iraq, that shows that Saddam had already destroyed the WMD that he unequivocably possessed before the inspection regime.

Before you deny that something is debatable, you need to establish that it has been proven. Please present the evidence sufficient to establish that a reasonable person would know (before the invasion) that Iraq did not have WMD. Keep in mind that there is a strong presumption to overcome, given the twelve years of violations of the UN inspection regime designed to document the destruction of the WMD.

Since it is not debatable that Saddam had WMD in the past, nor is it debatable that he was willing to use them, nor is it debatable that he was willing to attack his neighbors, nor is it debatable that he refused to cooperate fully with the inspection regime, nor is it debatable that almost every politician in captivity, Democrat or Republican, believed without hesitation that Iraq had or was trying to acquire WMD, you have a very long way to go before you can establish what you wish to assume without debate. A very, very long way, and you haven’t even started. Keep in mind that repeating a charge does not establish it.

Once you have established all this, feel free to apologize for the hypocrisy that does not condemn politicians for lying and attacking other countries, unless they happen to be Republican.

Regards,
Shodan

My opinion: the WMD claim was a fig leaf to cover opportunistic plans for an invasion that was going to happen no matter what, unless maybe the entire US erupted into protest, which, as we know, it did not.

I disagree. I think a lot of Americans, as I did, felt the administration concocted a fictional case in which Iraq was claimed to be a direct threat to the US, and objected strongly to the war, but knew enough about the Ba’athist regime to find it hard to muster any sympathy for it once the invasion was a fait accompli.

Despite the clear immorality of the invading a country that was not in fact a direct military threat, the horrible abuses perpetrated by the Ba’athists were well known and despite my opposing the invasion, the fact that it has occurred renders the previous situation moot, at least in may mind. The US, having having destroyed a considerable amount of the physical and political structure of Iraq, is obligated to provide what assistance it can to establish a new structure, hopefully one less prone to abuse. There can be no doubt that the invasion was not justified by the US administration’s claims, and as commander in chief, the current president should be thrown out on his ear for orchestrating it. On the other hand, there is at least a hope for a better situation for the Iraqis, and I believe that simply withdrawing the occupation force in Iraq before a working government has been established would be an even more irresponsible act than the invasion was.

I seriously doubt it was about “getting rid of the bad man”, although it may have been in part about getting rid of A bad man. I think the administration felt it had a chance and took it, but I also think this most calculating of regimes would not risk the political fallout of yet another unjustified invasion. I hope I am not proven wrong on this, should the regime get a second term. Assuming no major crises are sparked by Iran, North Korea or China, we probably will not be riding to the rescue of the rest of the world, at least in the next year or so, because even if our self-satisfied, believing-in-his-destiny leader wished to do so, we appear to have too many assets tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to make such an adventure practical.

You have no remaining basis in fact or reasoning to claim otherwise, only wishful thinking.

There will be many hinge factors, but that’s among them. How it works in favor of the liar is something for you to explain.

If Congress weren’t controlled by the same damn party, they might well be.

That’s what your shrink would call “transference”.

Shodan ol’ buddy, none of the others you listed started a war over it. None of the others said it was an absolute fact that the bad shit existed, and constituted a grave and imminent danger to us. Bush did. Yes, that may be painful to face, but it really is that simple and that damning. Clear now?

Regarding the “laughable” lies about WMDs, were all these people lying too?

“In halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed,” the President said. “We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.”

“If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people,” Clinton said. “And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons,” President Clinton said in a December 16 statement from the White House.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” – Madeline Albright, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” – Robert Byrd, October 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” – Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” – Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” – Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” – Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Bob Graham, December 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” – Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources – something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” – Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

And my opinion is that it’s an invasion and despot removal that should have happened in the '91 Gulf War. Bush the Younger finished the job that Bush the Elder didn’t get done for one reason or the other. Which could possible be another reason for lack of opposition to the war, the memory of not getting the job finished the first time.

Cite?

No, seriously, I think you’re way out of touch with how stupid the average person is. Call me a cynic, but there it is.

Gosh, all that cutting and pasting and nary a cite in sight. Tsk.

I guess we can see where your level of intellectual honesty lies… :dubious: