Have fun reading this, and then tell me this war was not the moral thing to do.
Those who supported the war against Iraq should be damned proud of being part of stopping this hideous regime.
I am not anti war, but have to ask - Why do pro war people make it seem like anti war people support saddam and the things he did?
I haven’t read your link (yet) but I think Pro-war people should give anti-war people a break, and vice-versa. My step-dad is strongly pro war, my mum is strongly anti war. I am somewhere inbetween, we all love each other.
And I personally would use the word ‘proud’. ‘glad’ would be better. or ‘relieved’
Sam, are you that ignorant or just stupid? *No one opposed to the war has been saying that Saddam Hussein is a good person. * War opponent does not = Saddam supporter. Why people are opposed to your “moral” war is because of American imperialism and the United States using Saddam as an excuse to go into Iraq to do whatever they want. If it is true that the U.S. did this only for the good of the people of Iraq, then perhaps you would like to explain to me why they have not tried to overthrow numerous other dictators in the world who are guilty of human rights abuses.
I’m not prepared to give American murderers a break any more than I would be prepared to give Iraqi murderers a break.
I missed a ‘not’ (from an obvious place) in my post.
I think it is wrong to label anyone pro-war. I have not heard any responsible person say that war is good and they wished there were more of it. It’s bad, but sometimes necessary. I’m all for giving anyone a break and respecting others’ rights to express their opinions even if I think they are 100% incorrect. But when I read articles like the OP, I don’t care whether the original motives were good, bad or indifferent, oil, weapons of mass destruction, or anything else. Ridding the world of that regime was good. We should do as we said – do whatever we can to repair the damage, establish order, and enable the people of Iraq to govern themselves, and then leave. Do you know of many other situations where the victors then proceed to rebuild the country they invaded? After WWII, Britain and France were in need of help themselves, but the U.S. not only helped them, but helped our former enemies. Ditto in Japan.
I agree with Sam.
Please show me where Sam Stone said that those who opposed the war were pro-Saddam. He didn’t. What I think he was saying was, in light of the linked article, do you now think that the war was moral? This is not the same as, in light of this article, do you now think that Saddam is a bad guy. Much as many “anti-war” people would like to believe otherwise, “pro-war” people are not under the misapprehension that the “anti-war” crowd love Saddam.
Haj
I never said they did. Still, they opposed the war. If they had gotten their way, people would still be dying in Saddam’s dungeons. Hundreds of people would still be rounded up and shot on a whim. Children would still be starving by the hundreds of thousands while Saddam sunk billions more into his palaces and apparatus of power.
There are plenty of reasons why people opposed the war. The fact remains that they opposed it. Those of us who supported it won the day. As a result, people will no longer have their ears cut off just to keep the population in line.
I feel pretty good about that.
My, what a stupid question. Since you brought it up, though, here are three possible answers:
-
Because we can only fight so many wars at one time.
-
Because not all dictators are as vulnerable to foreign invasion as Hussein.
-
Because George Bush has only been president for three years, and therefore can’t be held responsible for US foreign policy prior to 2000.
Still and all, it’s good to see the pro-war idiocy of the OP answered so promptly by an anti-war idiot. Keeps everything nicely in balance.
The big question now is, will the US actually help rebuild Iraq, or will things get even more fucked up? Remember, Saddam was actively supported by the US when it suited their interest, and I don’t doubt that Saddam was any less of a murder back then. Also, you can bet that the US didn’t invade Iraq to “liberate the people”. I’m not arguing that that wasn’t the result. I just don’t think it was the purpose. I mean, if the US really wanted to liberate Iraq, it would have been done back during the Gulf War.
So, will the US actually try to make things better in Iraq, or will they allow another ruthless dictator to take power, and then come back in a few decades and topple the new regime?
You make it sound like anti-war people want those things! Of course they fucking don’t!
You can say anti-war people are misguided or naive to think that those things could be stopped without war, but to say “If they had their way” and then list the horrors, that makes it sound like anti war people support saddam. So you didn’t say that at first, but in the post in which you defend your not having said it, you go and say it!
What if 10, or even 100 times more people are horribly tortured, by islamic terrorists as a [n indirect] of this war? will you be proud then?
The anti war people might say two wrongs don’t make a right. In time they might be proved right.
If those who supported the war should be proud of themselves, does that mean those who didn’t, and STILL DON’T, should be ashamed of themselves?
I have faith in things turning out ok - But I defend anti-war people because they may be being more realistic/less optimistic than me.
This war was not the moral thing to do
So, if this war was about oil, and the US installs a puppet regime or at least an US-friendly regime that five years down the line uses the same tactics as SH did to stay in power, would you still think this war was correct?
Or, say Iraq descends into chaos, and a virulent theocracy takes power which later uses worse methods of oppression than SH, especially of children and women, based on its ideology and to stay in power, would you still think the war was correct? And what if that theocracy starts funding Al-Qaeda with oil-rich money?
I know these are exaggerated scenarios but the point I am trying to make is that your whole argument rests on the assumption that Iraq is able to rebuild itself similar to the way Germany and Japan did with the valuable unadulterated support of US and its allies. If that happens, my suspicions would be erased and I couldn’t be happier.
But, please understand that there are those who had reservations about the war (and I still do) because they believe that the motives behind the war play a pivotal part in the reconstruction effort, and consequently, in how Iraq looks 10 years down the line. If it turns out significantly better, I will start defending the war.
Sam,
You seem to imply that the knowledge of how oppressive the regime was makes you feel proud that you made the right moral decision. I can empathize with that though I cannot use the phrase “right moral decision” without qualification. In any case, a part of me is immensely glad this horrendous regime is gone.
I hate this “moral war” thing. Fine; have a war. But nowadays nobody knows why the hell it happened.
First it was these “WMDs” (dumb phrase IMHO) and the US had to “protect itself” by “pre-emptivly” attacking (read: attacking) Iraq…
Then there were nebulous “links” to 9-11 that weren’t started by the US gov’t, but weren’t stopped, either
Now ask most people and it was all about saving the Iraqi people.
I’m guessing that once the “coalition” gets its act together and actually starts building up some infrastructure, it’ll have been about bringing democracy to a national dictatorship. I just hope Kim Jong-Il doesn’t go completely insane about this as he connects the dots, 'cause he’s liable to start nuking stuff. 
From the article:
Band name!
Again, I have to caution people–it’s not over yet. This thing is going to take a few years (at least) to shake out. Saddam is gone which is a good start but we’ve got to rebuild a ruined nation plus keep the lid on long enough for a functioning government to start up. Not easy, not easy at all but something we have a moral obligation to do.
And while I’ve never been anti-war, I have to say the way we went about starting it was pretty foolish. In fact, the only people who behaved more foolishly than Bush in this whole situation were the Iraqis and our Russian/French allies.
Removing Saddam was a good thing. But the war was not moral. A moral solution to Saddam would have been to remove him without blowing up a bunch of buildings and people.
A moral solution would have been to remove Saddam from power and put something other than anarchy and rule-by looter in it’s place
Sam, you are an idiot to think that just because the outcome of this war is not 100% bad, war was justified. You are not a moral person for wanting war. Quite the opposite in fact. You are not a moral person if you cheered while it was happening, or if you now imply that people who weren’t cheering should now be ashamed of themselves.
The weak minded occasionally seem to forget that war is something other than destruction of people and things. That it can somehow be noble. It’s not. War is waste, it’s use is a declaration of incompetence or evil by the party that chooses war over other means.
So which exactly are you proud to cheer for Sam? Evil or incompetence?