One of the rules of the SMDB is that you do not make personal attacks on members, unless you want to go to the Pit.
I’m glad the people of Iraq are freed from a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.
I’m still upset that the United States is pursuing its current neo-conservative, pax Americana, “we can do whatever the hell we want because we’re the world’s sole superpower” policy.
Anyone who thinks this war was waged (a) solely out of the goodness of George W. Bush’s heart or (b) to punish Saddam for the attacks of 9/11 have bought the White House propaganda hook, line, and sinker. It’s all about oil and power; the liberation of Iraq is merely a fortunate side-effect.
For that matter, where were the US & UK Governments? If the wellbeing of the Iraqi’s was truly important to them then they’d surely have motioned for invasion then. Could it be that innocent Iraqi lives were less important to them then than they are now?
While the humanitarian concerns are prevailing, IMO, it is utterly facile to assert that either the US or UK governments really give two shits about the Iraqi civilians when it is not politically expedient to do so. They were, and still are, just as much our pawns as they were Saddam’s.
First of all, there are some things that I need to get our front. I do not pretend that I am speaking for the “Lefty” movement, just myself. Second, based on what seems to me to be a concerted effort on the part of Conservatives to not actually hear what I have to say and to not look at these types of questions in a nuanced way, I have grave doubts that I will actually get through here. Finally, I think that the question itself is simplistic and flawed (sort of along the lines of “Are you still beating your wife?”).
So, if a month ago the US had appeared before the UN and said “look guys, there is a lot of horrible oppression going on in the world right now and we (the US) as the greatest military force on the planet feel that it is our moral obligation to do something about it. Further, here is a list of regimes that we want changed, starting with Iraq and here is a position paper as to why they are the first on the list. Oh and by the way, here is a comprehensive plan that we have to rebuild these nations after the action.” I think that I would have whole-heartedly supported the effort. Hell, for a cause like that I would volunteer to help the military in anyway that I can.
But that is not what really happened, is it? What really happened is that we went in pretty much because we wanted to and I have yet to get a good explanation as to why. This is not to say that I am not glad that the people of Iraq seem to be free of an odious regime. Just that I do not for one moment believe that they were much of a factor in us deciding to be there in the first place.
Further, I really think that the jury is still out concerning this newfound freedom. I desperately hope that the case is that we can help them craft a lasting, prosperous and stable democracy but think that it is much too soon to call it at this point.
So to return to the question, if we assume that I have magical time travel powers and that coupled with those I have magical change history powers and that I could go back before this conflict began and change things, than I think that what I would change is fundamentally how it happened, not that it did? Get it?
You would have to go back much further than a month. If I could go back to October 2001 and take over US policy then I guarnetee that I, or practically anyone else, could have done more with the almost total support the US enjoyed in the world at that point. Foreign policy under GWB has been a joke.
I would have changed things well before the war was even contemplated.
Unless you are a novice at history then you know quite well that a military victory is an easy thing especially when you are facing an enemy with no air power and at least a generation of development seperates your technology. Winning a battle in no way proves your policy is correct. In any battle there will be people jubulent at its end. That in no way implies that, in the grand sceme of things, the battle was a good idea.
N/A
I guess the same way you are going to explain to all those living in Africa or SE Asia or S America who are living lives as bad as those any Iraqi lived under Suddam that we are not coming to “save” them next.
We did that. Several times. Do you want the dates and the texts of their speeches?President Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002:
Colin Powell, to the United Nations, Feb. 15, 2003.
We did that too.
To make a long reply short, Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Wallon, See, I think that this is where the disconnect happens between the left and the right. The speeches and such that you are quoting, to me seem to be rhetoric as opposed to the actual reason that we went over there. Also, I keep missing the answer to why it was Iraq that we went after.
Look, no one is saying that Saddam Hussein and his regime were not abusing the people. We get it. The problem is that I do not have confidence that Human Rights are a priority to our current administration (for that matter I am not really clear that they ever have been historically).
So the thing is that I get that Bush said a lot of nice things about human rights, but that is not anything like the scenario that I was describing as one that I could support.
Also Waloon a preemptive apology for making a typo in your username.
So if you can’t solve all of the world’s problems, you shouldn’t try to solve any of them.
Iraq, after much lying, admitted to having weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. It claimed to have destroyed all its WMD, but provided no evidence that this happened, after 12 years of diplomacy and negotiations. The U.S. presented evidence to the U.N. that it currently has WMD. That is why Iraq. It was not only a threat to its own people, as most oppressive regimes are. Iraq had already twice made war on its neighbors (and launched missiles at Israel), resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Double “l”, double “o”.
Yeah, yeah I seem to be double letter challenged today.
-
Please do not confuse pro-war and anti-war with right and left. I am very much of the left and I am pro-war, and indeed I believe that it is the natural liberal position. But moving on…
-
This is where the anti-war position, IMO, has been goofy. How else were the Bushies supposed to give their rationale except by saying it?
anti-war: We demand to know why you want to go to war!!
Bushies: Here are the reasons [reasons given].
anti-war: Those are so obviously not the real reasons. We demand to know why you want to go to war!!
[repeat ad naseum]
- Worse, it has descended into conspiracy theory. “We’re there to take over Iraqi oil!!” Evidence, please? Historical precedents of the US conquering a country to plunder its natural resources (Well, maybe Guatemala and bananas back in the 50s).
In constrast, there is a great deal of evidence that Iraq was in defiance of UN binding resolutions, that it had WoMD programs, and that the regime oppressed its people.
- Why not? You have to start somewhere.
- A military victory would be (comparatively) guaranteed there.
- The legal basis already existed.
- The US was already engaged in a low-level conflict with Iraq.
Sua
I was replying to a question remember. The poster asked what I would say to the Iraqi’s if we didn’t invade. If we hadn’t they would still be in the same situation as these other populations. I stand by my reply.
No one outside the beltway accepted any of the “evedence” that the US presented to the UN. If GW had evidence then he should have presented it. He had nothing. We occupy the country and he still has no evidnece of WMD.
As to your second point I never said we should attack anybody. I was addressing the question of the poster again. Simply put if we had not invaded a soveriegn country for no reason other that GWB wanted to then the Iraqi people would be no different than millions of others living under oppresive regimes all over the world. The fact that some Iraqi’s are happy we came in no way validates the original reason for the invation.
Well, I live outside the Beltway and I accepted it. Further, if a poll was taken (which I’m sure it has), I suspect you’d find one or two more of us outside the Beltway. 
Making easily refutable universal statements really doesn’t aid your side in a debate.
Sua
So, first of all, your point is well taken that Anti-war and liberal are not necessarily synonymous. That being said, I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.
Are you stating that it is the goal of the Bush administration to improve Human Rights around the world, and that Iraq just happened to be a good place to start or do you believe that Iraq was a potential threat to the safety of America as a nation and that the liberation of the Iraqi people is a happy side effect?
Failing that, do you think that it was a combination of these factors and that there is nothing more to it than this?
So, to a certain degree, we went to war because it was easy, and we had nothing better to do with the time/money? Oh, that’s a relief! I was afraid we had actual reasons.
It seems to me, from what I’ve read in the papers and heard on the radio (I avoid TV coverage of the war since it universally is so over-the-top), that this point is strongly debated.
I can’t debate this point.
However, these points, to me, do not provide sufficient cause for unilateral military action, an action that sets us at odds with many other nations around the world. I think it significant that the “coalition of the willing” was comprised of a minority of nations in the world, and not many nations that have significant “lifting power.” I believe the world was telling us that going it alone is not something they want to support.
I cannot speak for all anti-war people, but I know that many I have talked to feel that while Saddam is/was an evil tyrant, that he did commit atrocious acts on his own people (though I believe the pro-war people have a tendency to blur the timelines of those atrocities and forget who gave Saddam the ability to commit them), and that the Iraqi people will be much better off without him in charge, in general we do not believe that the US has the right to act unilarterally (or with only a small number of allies) to invade any country that we feel might be a threat. This is why the UN was created in the first place. If it was right for the US to invade Iraq, what is stopping any other country from invading a foe and claiming the same right? We need to be better global citizens.
Now that we’re almost done with Iraq, I wonder who is next on Bush’s hit list?
JOhn.
Cite?
We are still fighting a war there for at least 40% of the country.
Why do you insist that the military action itself is supposed to find WMD. Kind of like the crutch that was used that weapons inspectors was the litmus test on if Iraq has WMD?
The finding will be after the removal of the powers that be and then the detective work begins. The lack of us not stubbing our toes on barrels of VX or whatever is not proving anything except that the regime is not utter morons when hiding their illegal weapons. Yes, we may stumble on them. But jut st because we havn’t only proves they are not out in the open.
But regardless, the OP and many people here are pointing to the celbrations that the war was a good thing in spite of WMD.
As Sua pointed out, the US felt it had a mandate to tackle Saddam. On one side of the coin it is said that the US must not arrogantly do things like this only because it wants to. On the other it is said even if the US feels it has a legal and moral mandate, it cannot be done unless all the worlds problems are attacked at the same fucking time.
You people must be ignored because of your illogical falacies, or nothing in this world would ever get done.
You claim that your only concern is for the Iraqi people. You ignore the fact that the past Iraq was for Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Their freedoms and safety was only substantiated at the insane will of Saddam. By ingoring that fact you can say that you are not supporting Saddam when you are against the actions to remove him.
How do you come to that? I honestly think you can seperate the two in your own mind. But I am asking you a direct question on how you do that.
When others ask you how you can support the brutal dictatorship and murders of the Iraqi people, your only response is that somehow those that want action now must have supprted it for the past 30 years or they would have done something about it before. So without the mandate the US feels it has now, you would support action in Congo where 3 million people have died? Does the US have to go throughout the world and start wars in every unpallatable regime just so you can appreciate the freeing of a country?
That kind of logic is not even noble, it’s childish.
Spite, please provide a cite for me right now where an anti-war poster is supporting the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Thanking you
And perhaps I need to clarify that request. Being against military action <> supporting the dictators.
Honestly, Sam, I don’t know. It’s wonderful that Saddam has been deposed, and I’m truly glad for the Iraqis. I’m also deeply thankful that so few American lives have been lost. I grieve for the civilian casualties, and I’m thankful that there haven’t been more of them. I’m happy that so far my pessimistic expectations have been proven wrong.
But I still would rather have seen the U.S. go in with U.N. support. I still don’t believe we went to war primarily to liberate the Iraqis. I still think that this sets up a frightening preemptive strike precedent.
So I’m conflicted. I don’t think I’m the only one, on the pro- or anti-war side, either.