Sorry if this has been discussed before; I had no idea how to search for my subject with all the other war threads about.
Anyway, with the Bush Administration seriously considering the idea of sweeping through Syria and Iran the same way they did Iraq, I’d like to ask the pro-war folks on this board if they would support such actions. If so, what is your list of countries to target? How would you want the Administration to go with the diplomatic side of such a plan? Do you think the danger of increased terrorism and Middle East/international unrest would increase or not? At what point would you stop? How much “rest time” would you give the troops before proceeding (and to where first)? Do you think the average citizen would support such moves, and for how long?
Note I’m only asking the pro-war folks because I know what the anti-war people would think, and I’d be interested to see where the average member of that group would stop…
I didn’t have much of a problem with war with iraq, though I wasn’t that supportive either, but I would not support a war on Syria. If there has to be another war soon(and I hope we can avoid that), I feel that North Korea would be a far more…important target of our attention.
Regardless, I strongly feel that we need to stablize Afganistan and Iraq before going on another “expedition”.
That’s an odd question. I don’t think anyone is ‘in favor of war’. If a world situation develops that suggests the need for another way, let it be handled just like the Iraq debate was. The administration can present it’s case, and we’ll take it under consideration.
If the administration can convince us that a problem exists of sufficient magnitude to justify war, and can explain how war will solve said problem, then it will have made its case. If not, the people will disagree, and throw the bums out of office in the next election if they try it anyway.
Wars don’t have to come iin packages, and you don’t have to vote for or against them in bunches. Once can be right, and the next wrong. Or maybe we’ve gotta do this another half dozen times before humanity is ready to move on to the next level of peaceful existance.
Let’s go where the evidence, our judgement and morals take us. We don’t have to prejudge things, or choose partisan sides over it.
I am not for another war, but the idea that we would has to remain on the table. We just whooped the biggest bully on the block and that has to be making the other bullies wonder. This is not the time to tell them not to worry.
He isn’t actually authorized by congress…
The use of force resolution, only covers Iraq, and is very specific in the use of that, unless he wants to have “Iraq” unilaterally cede Syria and Iran, so he could legally include it, but that’s just silly.
I know that congressional approval isn’t necessary, but if Bush wants to get reelected, then he would have to do that. I don’t think they would let it happen.
I was/am for this war but would not support another without serious international agreement. This one was unique in my mind for a number of reasons.
We fought with Iraq in '91 so they have good reason to hate us.
They’ve developed & used WMD before
They were already in violation of numerous SC resolutions.
The only way I’d support a war with say, Syria, without international agreement would be if another major terrorist attack occurs on American soil and it can definately be traced back to the perpetrators.
I know you didn’t ask anti-war folks, but judging from the responses so far, which all seem to be saying “this war was justified, but the others wouldn’t necessarily be”, I think you need to pose the follow-up question: “What exactly is different about the Iraq situation?”
I think war with Iraq, though perhaps not the only short term option, was certainly justifiable, for reasons already mentioned here.
But as far as Syria & Iran go, my understanding was that both nations were/are ‘westernizing’ somewhat. Iran in particular. As I understand it, the theocracy there is hemoraging popularity like it’s 1999. I’d hate to give them more reason to stay in power now.
And, I do not know if this is rumor or not yet, but word is that Syria is involved in serious negotiations with Ireal with regard to opening/reopening an oil pipeline to the new Iraq. Hopefully progress like that won’t be thrown out just because there are still some people in both nations that we kinda sort of don’t like, and somehow see the need to war with over it…
Oh, and Kudos to Fugazi for answering my follow-up question before I even asked it. But may I request a clarification on one of your points?
By this, do you mean that such an attack is a necessary prerequisite to war? And if so, do you actually believe that the case was sucessfully made that the 9/11 attack could be definitely traced back to Iraq?
Or are you saying that the standards should be changed for future wars, now that we have engaged in one war?
Well correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the Bush Administration was being very careful to avoid giving the impression that this invasion was in any way about oil or about “Westernizing” Arab countries. Almost all of the pro-war arguments I have ever heard consistently cling to the human-rights angle, to the point of vehemently denying that the war is about oil or global domination. And Syria certainly has a dismal human rights record:
I think Fugazi covered it blowero. I don’t think Syria or Iran has participated in the terms listed by Fugazi. He then gave the example of the most obvious set of circumstances that could propel us into a war with said countries.
To recap: prior war and 12 years of Iraqi defiance, development and usage of WMD, violation of UN resolutions.
Sam Pretty much summed up what my response was to the OP.
Blowero You tell me what you know for a fact the difference is between Iraq and those other countries, and you will have your answer. If you say nothing, then you are ignoring the facts.
And to be honest with you, the government has never stated a case to invade anyone next. I am not “pro-any-war”. I don’t think we should invade just because we can. But once the government thinks it needs to, makes the case, and even puts half the attempt they put into the Iraq effort for an international colaition, then we can have a serious debate on it.
No, not a prerequisite. If it happens though, it’s definately a reason to go to war (assuming of course the country harboring the terrorists doesn’t give them up)
No, I have no reason to believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I do think they back some terrorism though.
No, I was just saying this situation was kind of unique. All situations have differences and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I do wish we would get more international concensus if we get in any more conflicts. Of course my #1 hope is that we don’t need to get in any conflicts.
Please don’t intentionally mis-read my posts ** Dryga_Yes ** in order to make whatever point your trying to make.
I said in my first post in this thread “This one was unique in my mind for a number of reasons.” and then I listed ** some ** of my reasons. The total of all the good reasons I listed to myself outweighed the total of all the bad reasons. That is why I support this particular war.
The OP asked if people who were for this war would be for another. I said not necessarily/ probably not. I gave my reasons. Do you have anything to add to the OP or did you just come to snipe at me.
What happened in Iraq requires a pretty loose definition of ‘war’, IMHO.
You’ll likely find most other folks aren’t so keen to be ‘liberated’ by the US. The price of any further ‘liberations’ would see this current Imperialist euphoria decline sharply as the US electorate looked for scapegoats for all those body bags coming home.
No US president will commit ground forces without very good scenario’s - no, make that extremely good numbers - from the planners and he ain’t going to get anything positive from them in relation to anywhere else.
So calm down and get real, politically, geo-politically, and militarily Iraq is a one-off.
Sam, once again, has articulated my thoughts precisely.
Leaper: I’m assuming you count yourself in the anit-Iraq-war crowd. Apologies if I’m wrong about that, but I’m afraid you’re not going to get a blanket moritorium on future wars. We’ll act when we see it’s in our national interest to do so.
Yes, but the motivations of national interest will last only as long as America’s domination of the world economy. As we can see from Guatemala and Iran in the 1950’s, and Chile twenty years later, “national interest” usually means “economic interest”. If the US loses its advantage in the world economy and has less and less to protect through military means, wars can decrease significantly.
Of course, I’d rather the US take the route of Switzerland and Costa Rica and abolish the military as we know it. Both countries are surrounded by historically land-hungry countries, and their lack of a military are doing fine.
Uh, UnuMondo, unless things have changed recently, Switzerland does have a military. In fact, the entire population of Switzerland is required to serve in the military for a period of time. (Not that I think that the Swiss have a bad situation WRT to their military.)
