I am quite confident in my own mind that this war was absolutely moral. It seems to me that when rich countries sit around in their debating societies, taking for granted their freedom, making tee times and driving their SUVs and do nothing despite massive reqources at their dispoisal, that is the height of immoral behaviour. DO NOTHING while people are tortured and gassed and murdered. As a practical matter, I completely understand why you cannot actually go in and remove all the evil in the world. Since this isn’t a theorem to be proved, all I can say is that in my mind this war is clearly morally justified.
Mtgman:
Uh, no, I don’t think so. Have you actually looked at the reports? They can’t all be false. Or maybe I’m mistaken and we really do have underground dungeons where we keep children who won’t join the Young Republicans, just for starters.
Note: “Atrocities” come in lots of forms. We don’t have to be committing the exact same acts, but I’ll still stand by my assertion that we’ve harmed many innocent people with our actions. Strip away the noble ideals in the minds of pilots who dropped bombs and whatever was in the minds of torturers in Saddam’s political dungeons and both produce the same output. Dead, mangled civilians.
Enjoy,
Steven
I don’t follow you here at all. I don’t see how my words say that at all. But regardless of that, what I was saying was that, in the 1980s, we were willing to tolerate his evil, either because we were more worried about Iran, or because the hostage incident had left us more than willing to aid any opponent of Iran, no matter how odious. (I really don’t know which, but it pretty much has to be one or the other.)
Our government was very aware of how evil Saddam was, back during the Reagan years. And it wasn’t exactly kept secret from ordinary citizens back then, but few were paying attention. Few Americans were aware of what Saddam was like, and few were aware that the US government was taking sides in a non-trivial fashion re Iran-Iraq.
The problem is, that puts Iran in the Nazi Germany position in this analogy, and while Khomeini’s regime was no great shakes either, it’s hard to make an argument that Iran was so evil that an alliance with pretty much anyone was a reasonable price to pay to stop it, even then.
It’s far more reasonable to say that Hitler had to be stopped, than to say the Ayatollah had to be stopped: by the time we entered WWII, Hitler had already conquered Europe. Iran, on the other hand, had done what? Certainly nothing so worrisome that we had to check our moral precepts at the door. There’s a big difference between WWII, a war that eventually came to get us despite our best efforts to ignore it, and Iran-Iraq, a local war that might have affected the price of oil if left unchecked.
When it comes to this war, either you think the ends justify the means, or you think that a country that believes in doing the right thing should always do the right thing, no matter how difficult.
No one disputes that Saddam was bad. But the US govt used a number of alternative arguments to justify his removal.
Internationally, and in the UN, the US argued that Iraq had to be invaded because it had chemical and biological weapons. Since no concrete proof was found, this effort failed. (If you think that Powell did indeed present concrete proof in his UN presentation, I suggest you watch the entire thing again. I watched that whole thing live, and there was woefully little substance. And that was before reporters went to the locations in question and found nothing but a bakery.)
Then the US argued that it had to ‘defend itself’ from possible terrorist attacks by invading Iraq. This went over like a lead balloon, because the notion that the best defence is a good offence only applies on the gridiron.
Then Rumsfeld et all decided that the marines were going to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people. I wager that if this tactic had been tried at an international level there would have been much more support for this war.
Obviously, all these tactics were thought of before the war began by the higher-ups that directed this war. Draw your own conclusions as to why the US administration didn’t use 'em to garner international support for a meaningful coalition.
I’m not sure I agree Barbarian. I think the classification falls more along the lines of cost/benefit analysis. The anti-war folks feel that the good that comes from the war (which includes the liberation of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam) is outweighed by other factors. The pro-war faction feels that the real and potential “bad” things that are direct results of the war are outweighed by the “good” that’s accomplished. Both groups (the anti and the pro) are using basic cost/benefit analysis to reach their positions.
In that light it seems to me that evaluations of the war and it’s results are directly dependent on the poster’s beliefs of the outcome. Pro-war people tend to view the war as having lower casualties and side effects then do anti-war people. See Sam Stone’s thread (which I’m too lazy to link to at this point) about war predictions in GD for examples. Basically then people’s cost/benefit analysis are being skewed based on how they think the war will progress and what the fallout will be.
Obviously the anti-war people feel that the direct and indirect effects of the war will be severe enough to more then counteract the good that comes from freeing the Iraqi people from terrible repression. Conversely, the pro-war people feel that the loss of a lot of international good will, a potential increase in terrorism, etc. is more then outweighted by the good effects of the war.
That’s basically it.
This is sickening. If the U.S. was hoping to have any credibility (which is already pretty much shot), piping Iraq’s oil to their ENEMY will almost certainly remove any possibility that our action will be seen as benevolent, provide proof that the new Iraqi government is a puppet regime, and cement Arab hatred for the U.S. government. And this is supposed to decrease terrorism?
Good plan, there. I wonder if these people ever think at all.
You’re right, it would have been a really bad idea to go after Bin Laden before 9/11. Not implying that 9/11 has anything to do with Iraq but you get my drift.
I wouldn’t even mind the “we went to war to liberate the poor repressed people” line if our first target wasn’t one who had such obvious riches for American companies to plunder.
I mean, if George W. Bush had said, “We must wage war with the Evil Repressive Dictator of Howundaland, and once they’re free, we won’t take anything because the country has jack-shit anyway,” at least I could believe that the war was waged out of the goodness of his heart. But with Iraq, everything today has been “Hey, we freed you poor repressed Iraqi people, now how about you return the favor by giving our companies some oil in gratitude, hint hint nudge nudge?”
The Iraqi people are so lucky – if they weren’t living in oil-rich Iraq, George W. Bush might not have noticed their plight…
Can you find where we are asking for free oil? I was under the assumption that we would, as always, be paying normal market prices for it. Thanks for enlightening me.
EXACTLY! Just like the oil we are plundering from Afghanistan, huh!? :rolleyes:
I would ask for a cite regarding oil being given to American companies (as you claim), but I don’t expect much fact from people like you.
Your comparison to Afghanistan is ill-considered. Rjung’s point was that Bush did not invade Iraq out of the “goodness of his heart”. But neither did he invade Afghanistan for selfless reasons. It was in fact done to remove the Taliban from power, who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden. Your implication that the U.S. had nothing to gain from Afghanistan is therefore incorrect. IMO, going after the Taliban was a much stronger justification than the comparatively weak justification offered for the Iraq invasion, which is why we have lost support from the international community.
The “liberation” angle seems to be played-up more and more now that we are apparently having trouble finding the WMDs. I suspect that if we ever do find WMDs, that issue would once again take center stage.
I wonder if you checked out Zanthor’s link regarding the pipeline to Isreal, and if, in light of that, you still think the oil was not a factor in Bush’s decision?
Indeed, and perhaps some 1000 of them- the figures are still imprecise, and we’ll never know exactly. Horrible.
But- dude- the bombing is now over, that terror had ended. Whereas Saddams horror & terror went one for decades- and showed no sign of ending. In fact, by some guesstimates- the number of lives we have saved is already more than the lives that were lost in the bombing- and those innocent civilian lives were at least taken inadvertently & with a heavy heart- not slowly, with sadistic glee.
And there is a difference you know- between being slowly & deliberately tortured to death because of your political beleifs, while you wife & daughters are gang raped in front of you- as opposed to having a bomb miss a nearby military target & kill you.
“Intent” is a defense in murder trials, you know. “Dead may be Dead”, yes, but if I was shooting at a mass murderer, and my bullet went wild, and killed a innocent bystander- I’d have a much easier time of it in the courts that if I had that “innocent bystander” in my basement and tortured him & his family to death… simply because he disagreed with me.
Note that I did not agree with a unilateral invasion of Iraq- sets a very bad precedent. But Saddam was a very evil man, and Iraq is much better off now.
We only keep one on hand, the rest are frozen in the basement.
By the way, how tall are you?
This whole sthtick about piping oil to Israel just has to be a hoax. Nobody, but nobody is that brain-dead, drooling in the oatmeal stupid!. That would be like sticking yer pecker in a fire ant mound, just to see what would happen.
Has to be a hoax. They’re not that stupid! They’re not that stupid! They’re not…
I get the idea that there is some confusion, perhaps deliberate, between the pretext or necessity for the invasion, the objectives of the invasion and the consequence of the invasion.
The pretext was that Iraq had defied the UN directive to disarm and that it was necessary for the US and the UK to enforce the UN directive even though the UN did not appear to have any interest in doing so. A secondary pretext was that it was possible that Iraq could deliver chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to Ben Laden et.al. Despite a popular connection between 9/11 and Iraq, that secondary argument never resonated with the public. It was only at the last minute that the liberation of Iraq became an imperative although it is difficult to see how that could make the invasion a necessity.
As far as publicly stated objectives for the war are concerned, the elimination of Sadam’s government was the principal objective. Acquisition of Iraqi oil was never a stated objective but paying for the war and the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq with Iraqi oil was.
A necessary consequence of a successful invasion was the relief of Iraq from a totalitarian and, by al accounts, brutal dictatorship—thus improving the lot of the country, or at least giving the opportunity for an improvement. It remains to be seen if this opportunity will be realized. With the antagonism toward the US/UK now coming to the surface, the strength of Islamic radical fundamentalism in the region, the existing ethnic and religious and tribal antagonisms, and the general struggle to fill the post-Sadam power vacuum a stable, peaceful, equitable and democratic future for Iraq is open to question. No rational observer can argue that the elimination of Sadam is not a “good thing,” in the oversimplified sense of that phrase (see 1066 And All That). Likewise, no rational observer can think that it is now assured that Iraqis will live happily ever after.
As far as Sam Stone’s implied assertion is concerned, any contention that the relief of Iraq was the cause of the war is just disingenuous and manipulative. It is my recollection that with the exception of a few “no war, ever, for any reason” types the arguments made against the war were that there was not an adequate pretext. Why the people who thought the pretext for the invasion was inadequate should feel chagrined because the invasion has been successful and its objectives largely accomplished is beyond my understanding. If ** Sam** and the boys wish to waive their big foam finger that is their business. As for me I want to see what happens next. The US’s actions are going to count for a lot more than moralistic and pious proclamations of hope for freedom and security for Iraq.
I can’t help but think of the late, great Bill Hicks when reading comments like this.
“Who are these people with such low self-esteem? I saw them on the news waving their flags. Could I reccommend something instead of a war to feel better about yourselves? Perhaps … sit-ups? Maybe a fruit cup? Or walking around the block at dusk? I always find that cheers me up.”
Ah, Bill. Ahead of your time, until time caught up with you. Rest in peace, mate.
Amen.
Um.
7’ 10".
Really.
Stop following me!
An estimated 100,000 civilians died from lack of food/medical care/as a consequence of destroyed infrastructure in the years following Desert Storm. Just because we’re not blowing them up in large numbers doesn’t mean that people who wouldn’t have died if we had never intervened won’t die. Surely some who would have died if we hadn’t interevend will live, but both sides should be acknowledged.**
No argument on the first point, reserving judgement on the second.
Enjoy,
Steven