Please convince me about this war deal...

Great Debates
1

I used to be totally against the US going into Iraq. I’m no longer so sure.

I mean, we’ve all read the Amnesty reports. We know the sick shit that’s going on in Iraq. Yes, that has to be stopped. Maybe war is the only way to do it.

On the other hand, that’s not the reason for the war. The official reason is the weapons of mass destruction, that nobody even can say exist. If they’re going in there to overthrow a dictator and liberate his people, why this whole song-and-dance about the weapons?

Then again, if one dictator is going to be overthrown, why not all of them? I fucking hate the double standards here; support dictators as long as they do what they’re told, then kill them when they disobey. Hussein got money during the 80s, and he was no less of an asshole then. Money was poured into Afghanistan prior to the World Trade Center attacks, but immediately afterwards we started hearing about the poor Afghan women who had to wear burqas and were executed if they showed their faces. Nobody cared about them until then, and that war wasn’t about the people either. It never is. I’m sure there are dictatorships out there receiving money from the US as we speak.

So, should the US just bomb every non-democracy into submission? Then we have a situation where the US is basically the dictator of the world, since every government knows that it’s sitting there only as long as the US wants it to. And that’s ba-a-a-ad.

But it worked in Japan. It really did. They’re democratic and autonomous now. What did they do right in Japan, and can they do it again?

I dunno, sometimes I think we should just kill everybody but 50 young, smart men and 50 young, smart women, and just start over, with the experiences of this world to guide them. A trifle difficult to implement, yes.

So, could someone please push me off this fence? Convince me to be either for or against this war.

2

After much thinking, I’ve decided in favor of the war. It’s not like Viet Nam, where we were basically operating on the premise that any non-Communist government was good. The media fed us the basic lie that all Communists were the bad guys, and all non-Communists were the good guys, so we allied ourselves with various dictators around the globe just because they were rightist. For instance, geography schoolbooks and encyclopedias of the era presented all of Latin America as comprising well-run representative democracies which, if not quite enjoying the standard of living of the U.S., were nevertheless well on the way. Cuba, of course, was the exception. Based on that, I could understand the popular rage against the war in VietNam.

But this war is different. We’re getting rid of a dictator. Things can’t help be better for the Iraqis once he’s gone. As for Saddam loyalists, I don’t care if 95% are loyal to him if the other 5% are being oppressed.

3

I keep coming back to the thought that it’s really difficult to push the toothpaste back into the tube.

Now that Dubya Dubya II is a reality (thanks, minty), lives are on the line on all sides. Losing this stupid war isn’t going to help anyone–not the Iraqis, not the Brits or Americans, and probably not the Arab or Muslim worlds, either.

So let’s win the damned thing if we can and do not ever forget how bloody stupid the United States can be when we’re incoherently pissed off and saddled with incompetent leadership.

The Bush Doctrine isn’t really a bad idea in its intent, which pimps the ideas of democratic government and free trade as a way to lessen international tensions. Losing this war will do more to reverse that doctrine than winning it will.

Not fighting this war at all would have been better. But, unfortunately, is not an option now.

4

The bright side in this particular conflict is that regime change is the stated goal. If the Iraqis turn on the coalition the instant Saddam is gone, possible, the coalition leaves without losing. We have an obligation to rebuild Iraq after the war, granted. But, we do not have an obligation to kill the population to save it. Nor is there an obligation to sacrifice many lives in an unwanted occupation.

Of course if the next ruler is another tyrant with delusions of grandeur, back to square one.

If I’m reading the OP correctly, one point you would like answered is, why Iraq, why now? It’s all the reasons that everyone claims to a greater or lesser degree. There is no one overriding reason for this war.

In forming ideological or military coalitions to accomplish a particular end, in this case toppling Saddam, the participants will do so for a variety of reasons. From the Kurds and the Shiites to the Israeli lobby, the victims of Saddam’s torture, and the oil companies, and more – each motivated to the same end for different reasons.

Those of us who are not directly involved on the ground naturally are going to look at things through whatever lens we usually do. I look at things in terms of freedom and brutality. Saddam is no slouch in restricting the first and dishing out the second. I’ve wanted to see him gone since the first Gulf War. But, in my youth, I was suckered by some arguments that “inspections would disarm him without the casualties of a war” Sound familiar?

However many so-called victims of the sanctions later, I’m starting to think that sanctions did not save lives. What sanctions did was turn a potential short-term humanitarian crisis (taking out Saddam in 1991) into a long-term nightmare of death by sanctions–killing perhaps hundreds of thousands more.

In one sentence: the lesson of the Twentieth Century is that brutal despots, ruling through terror, creating bizarre cults of personality, killing the innocent without a thought or care, well, they should be stopped. Removed by force if necessary. There are always limits on what can be done. That does not condemn free nations to permanent inaction.

5

Hey, PriceGuy, welcome to the real world! :wink: Unfortunately, we don’t always have nice, clean choices. It’s not always “Do we support the evil dictator, or do we support the nice democratic leader who loves puppies and little kids?” It’s like someone asking you if you’d like them to kill your wife, or kill your neighbor? Well, both options suck, but if you have to choose…

With Saddam in particular, it was a choice between an evil secular dictator (Iraq), and an evil radical Islamist dictator (Iran). We chose the secular guy. It wasn’t because we liked him, or approved of what he did, but these two nations were warring. We analyzed the outcome of each side winning, and decided that Iraq winning the conflict was marginally better. Not good, mind you, just better.

Of course, you could argue that we should have backed Iran, instead (though I’d be inclined to disagree with you). You could also argue that we should’ve stayed out of the whole business, or that we should have supported Iraq to a lesser extent than we did, or any other number of should-haves, and those arguments may have merit. But what you can’t argue - at least not credibly, IMO - is that the US just randomly supports dictators so it can use them to fulfill its nefarious deeds. Our actions are sometimes for the betterment of our own interests, but frequently for the betterment of everyone. A middle east entirely controlled by a single radical Islamist dictator backed by the Soviet Union would’ve been bad for all, and that’s one of the perils we foresaw in an Iranian victory. Again, you can argue that this notion was far-fetched, but what you can’t argue is that we acted as we did so that we could save a nickel on gas, or whatnot (which, unfortunately, many people seem to believe).

So, then, to address this point more directly, why not take out all of the dictators? For one thing, we don’t have an army quite that large - ie, we couldn’t if we wanted to. And of those we do have the means to take out, most of them, we would be unable to secure the political capital necessary to rally support. Saddam is about as clear-cut a case for regime change as you can find, and we were barely able to garner support for this war. Trying to go up against a bad-but-not-as-bad-as-Saddam nation like Saudi Arabia is just a pipe dream. And lastly, sometimes dictators may be necessary evils, in that they may hold back worse demons. That was pretty much the guiding principle of the Cold War - a belief that capitalist dictatorships were better than communist “democracies” under the protective arm of the USSR (and let’s be realistic - no communist nation is going to be a terribly happy place for long, anyway).

This all doesn’t really address the specific question of whether or not you should support this war in particular, but it hopefully addresses what is sometimes perceived as hypocricy in the US’s foreign policy, and dispels that oft-cited fallacy that we supported Saddam in the past, therefore it’s wrong of us to be removing him now.
Jeff

6

The mistake is that the OP assumes the Administration’s stated reasons for this war are the real reasons for this war.
[ul]
[li]“It’s about WMDs!” …as long as we ignore the other nations with bigger/worse/more imminent WMD programs.[/li][li]“It’s about overthrowing a repressive regime!” …as long as we ignore the other repressive regimes, some of whom have US support.[/li][li]“It’s about violating UN resolutions!” …as long as we ignore other nations who have violated more UN resolutions for even longer.[/li][/ul]

Everything about this war makes sense once you look past the official excuses, and go to the heart of the matter – what’s Iraq sitting on top of, that the United States wants to secure for its long-term stability, and which will profit George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their corporate croneys once we have it?

7

As opposed to the unreal reasons?

I’m glad that it requires an accumulation of rationales to start a war. If it only took one really good rationale that would justify the hypothetical everyone throws out about taking down every dictator.

But, no, the hypothetical ignores complex reality. In reality only the really bad tyrants who meet certain criteria and violate enough international norms might be taken down. And even then, only when it’s possible and you can get some allies together. There must be economic motivations, multiple wars without finality, and attempts at peaceful solutions, no matter if those solutions have a huge cost in lives. Furthermore, any nation undertaking a war must prepare to meet international condemnation, the US especially.

But, less cynically, principled opposition to all wars a la the Quakers I respect greatly. It is healthy in a free society for the pacifist voices to be heard, until it becomes necessary to open up on them with rubber bullets. :smiley:

Every war is about oil: the tanks, APCs, trucks, and jets run on it.

8

rjung Even if you are correct - and I am not necessarily agreeing. Any reason to rid the world of a genocidal regime like this must be at least looked at, and probably accepted. I agree that there are plenty of other regimes that require change…and i would be happy to support their overthrow.

Personally I am quite happy with the US playing world policeman. it beats the hell out of say, the Chinese govt deciding to do it (or for that matter the UN - they proved their usefullness in kosovo right

9

Unwritten, You bet! No matter what the so called “Pricipled” objections to this are, I hardly see any outcome of this that leaves Iraq worse off, or even only as good as was before. Whatever the reason, we are doing the right thing (not easy when the rest of the world wants only the path of least resistance), and thats the important factor here…

RJung,

You say

I say… I have a bridge to sell you. Small bills only please.

10

I think even the anti-war protestors, aside from the principally pacifist, favor the war. They do not like at all the way it went about.

11

Even though we cannot get rid of all the dictators in the world, just getting rid of one gives me a great deal of satisfaction and i consider Saddam only second to Kim.

12

Sweet merciful crap! I think this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on this board.

I can’t address all the reasons for and against the war because I haven’t the time (or patience) at the moment. I think there are valid reasons against it. However, I also think that the reasons for outweigh the reasons against. Humanitarian concerns may not have been the first reason put forward by the Bush administration, but it’s a dang good one.

As for whether we can now turn on Saddam after having supported him at one point, I’m with El Jeffe. We had our reasons for supporting him then, and (in my opinion) they were good ones. Regardless, the fact that we used to support a guy that turned out to be one of the worst dictators in modern history is not a valid reason not to do something about him now. And the fact that there are other terrible regimes out there is not a reason that we shouldn’t end this one.

Total consistency would be nice, but it’s not totally necessary. If we can only do one right thing, we should do it. Maybe in the future we can try to do the others. But not doing the right thing for the Iraqis (and I think for the world in general) because of fear that we’ll be applying a double standard doesn’t make much sense to me. I give to a charity that supports battered women and children in my area, even though I know they can’t help everyone that needs it. Same rule applies here. I’d rather be thought to have a double standard than tell the Iraqi citizens that I can’t help save innocent Iraqi lives because I can’t simultaneously save innocent Syrian lives.

13

It may be better than the Chinese doing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. I just cannot see how a single nation playing world dictator (which is what “world policeman” comes down to) can be good. While I may prefer the US government over the Iraqi government, there are many governments I’d rather have than either, but now, due only to military strength, the US version may very well be taking over the world.

If the US arranges elections in postwar Iraq and a Communist party is elected, what will the US do? Pull out and let them be, as they should? I don’t think so. Their track record shows otherwise.

14

What makes you think the US would even let “unapproved” candidates get on the ballot to begin with?