Much of the international backing came about by Powell’s disgraceful "dog and pony show’ at the U.N. They bought that we actually had good intelligence . We were America after all.
My personal line of thinking is that a country should try and help other countries, if the cost for it is acceptable. For instance, I would be for going to war against Hitler, even if that would be at a high cost in lifes for the attacker (whether it is USA or something else.)
So lets say I speak for USA, and I should consider whether to attack Iraq, I would consider 2 things. 1. What the cost would be to me. 2. How much it would help the Iraqi people. If the cost is acceptable for the gain, then I would be supporting the war.
What I am confused about is how little the discussion about the war is regarding (2). When I read, it is always about whether they had weapons of mass destruction, about whether Bin Laden had ties to the country, and how many American soldiers have died there. If it could help the Iraqis, then I think it could be acceptable to have some loss of american soldiers. Also, I think the problem with regard to (2) was maybe not so much about the war itself, but instead the rather poor and alienating job performed afterwards. It turned out badly, but maybe it didn’t have to, and it doesn’t seem clear to me that the “humanitarian” viewpoint is to be opposed to the war.
What about you. Is your view that Iraqi lives are worth much less than American ones? Your second paragraph implies that.
Me, I don’t know exactly what I think the trade-off is, somewhere above 1 and less than infinity Iraqi lives to 1 American live.
The thing I’m wondering about is that it seems to me that this is not often a consideration. “Yes, we are losing soldiers, but we are also helping the Iraqi people in fighting a brutal dictator. Maybe its the right thing to do, even if we did it in a suboptimal way.” This is not an argument I hear often, and I don’t see why not.
Do you never think it’s good to be the aggressor? What if you could invade North Korea, and turn it into a democracy for $1?
Because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. US forces let hospitals be looted and burned for the sake of securing the oil ministry building. US forces dragged Iraqis from their homes and imprisoned them. Oh, and bombed the hell out of their cities too. These are not humanitarian actions. Nor did the situation in Iraq warrant an invasion; there is no way that turning Iraq into a battlefield would improve the lot of its population.
Some people have and probably still will try to argue that it was necessary to burn the village to save it, but by and large they’re also the sorts who would just parrot whatever the White House was peddling at the time and call you a Saddam-lover if you disagreed before moving on to the next excuse. Are you familiar with the flypaper theory? That people came up with that one thinking it justified invasion boggles the mind to this day.
There are some problems with that “what if”. Invade and democracy don’t work in the same sentence, nor do invade and $1.
Obviously.
Well, it might be good to be an aggressor in that alternative universe you are proposing. But what does that have to do with the universe we actually live in?
So maybe these are the problems, not the invasion in itself? I’m not saying it is necessarily so, I’m just wondering why it is such an unpopular viewpoints among people claiming to have the humanitarian viewpoint.
I was trying to find out why Der Trihs was against aggression, and thought that it is good if aggression is costly.
Because it’s not supported by the facts. That’s my excuse, anyway.
Nonsense. It was largely destroyed after Desert Storm, or simply decayed over time as such things do. The evidence as has been repeatedly point out was the the Bush Administration was lying, and blatantly so. Anyone who believed them dud so because they wanted to believe not because the lies were remotely plausible.
I didn’t see through Bush’s lies or realize that the war was under false pretenses because I’m some sort of genius or had insider access. I saw those things because it was obvious. Anyone paying attention should have done the same.
And Americans in general. There was a strong “Christians versus the unbelievers” undercurrent to the war, Americans wanted to kill some Muslims after 9-11 and they didn’t care if they had anything to do with it. And Bush is is the kind of guy who tortures animals, mocks the condemned and takes trophies from his victims (Saddam’s personal gun, in this case).
:rolleyes: As if money is the only objection to mass murder.
And 1 life.
I know whenever feel the need for kicks, I go out and kill me some Muslims. I usually burn a Koran or two to really get in the mood!
A couple things:
-
The president does not speak and act single-handedly on behalf of the country, especially when it comes to something as important as war. Legally, he needs the agreement of congress. And I would argue that morally he needs the support of the public for something so costly to the nation. The focus is on weapons of mass destruction because that’s where Bush put it. That’s the debate we had, and on which I believe Bush staked his credibility. If he believed that this was a humanitarian mission, then that’s what he should have told us at the time, so we could make up our minds back when it still mattered.
-
The Tooth already mention the “we had to burn the village in order to save it” argument. It’s also said that “the military’s job is to kill people and blow stuff up.” It’s a bit Orwellian to say we did it for their own good.
A (not even very close) look at the quotations provided will demonstrate that pretty much all of them were made prior to September, 2002. Up until that point, a lot of people felt or believed that Hussein still had a lot of weapons laying around from earlier adventures.
However, once the UN agreed to go back in, (minus the U.S. spies), and actually look at the evidence in-country, that evidence began to demonstrate overwhelmingly that the Weapons of Mass Destruction had pretty much all been destroyed by Hussein or rotted on their own. By February, 2003, the only people who were willing to repeatr the claim that Hussein had WMDs were Bush administration taliing heads, and even they periodically admitted, privately, that the WMD claims were false.
Pointing to misapprehensions held prior to the fall of 2002 as evidence of what people believed in the Spring of 2003 demonstrates a seriously tenuous grasp of history.
We replaced a despot who was killling, perhaps, 100 people a month, (his much higher killing rates were all from the period of the Iraq/Iran war or the period of the insurrection that GWHB promoted but did not support), in a country that had a functioning civil infrastructure with a handful of despots who encouraged ethnic cleansing throughout much of the country, led the nation to the brink of civil war on more than one occasion, and has failed to restore the infrastructure needed for people to live their lives in realtively good health and prosperity for over eight years, during which time, internal strife has killed far more people than Hussein ever managed to do.
That would be a few reasons why you do not hear the argument that you put forth: it is wrong.
Exactly the opposite is my view. I have no idea how you could read it otherwise.
The question for you is, why not 1? :dubious: Before answering, consider, in context, that you’re referring to the worth of the lives of [i he very people you claim we were helping*. You seem terribly confused about that.
Perhaps actually reading the responses to your JAQ might enlighten you.
We did kill Muslims, lots of them. And throw Korans in toilets. And tortured them, of course. And re-elected the man who ordered it all done, so no it isn’t all Bush’s fault.
Well if the welfare of an american is worth exactly as much to you (being an american) as the welfare of any human on earth, why don’t you advocate using the most of the US budget to help Africa?
I’m agreeing with you. I do it all the time “for kicks”. It’s the American way.