Why Should I Believe That This War Is Wrong?

Great Debates
1

For most of my life, I’ve taken mostly liberal stances on political and/or moral issues.

I don’t like war, but there’s just something about this current conflict that seems…*different. * As in, not wrong.

It’s taken me a while to get to this point. But the more I learn, the less I see that’s wrong with all of this. War is ugly, and war is sad. But it’s just not always wrong.

One could argue that we didn’t push a diplomatic solution hard enough. But really now, would that have worked? Saddam Hussein has done a fine job of proving that he’s no diplomat. Perhaps it would have delayed this whole thing, and perhaps we might have managed to get more popular support, but I really think that it still would have happened.

And as for the people who holler about how long this is taking…well, it’s been 10 days. Days. I think this may stem from people my age (35) and younger simply not having experience with long conflicts that involve the United States military forces. I remember nothing about Vietnam. The other military conflicts that have occured in my lifetime have all been very brief. But I know enough about history to know that this is the *exception, * and not the rule.

Civilian deaths? Yes, those are nasty. No one wants those. Except, perhaps, Saddam Hussein. It’s become very, very clear to me that the US is trying it’s absolute hardest to avoid killing civilians. However, they simply cannot be avoided completely. It would be nice if they could, but it just isn’t possible.

The whole thing is confusing and frustrating. I know we don’t have complete UN support. I know we’re not stepping in to stop an invasion by Iraq on some other nation. But I’m just not seeing this as illegal, or wrong.

So, why should I? Really? Am I missing something?

2

"Am I missing something?"

Well, yes–the 150+ threads that have addressed this topic during the last couple of months. :wink:

Seriously, though, I’m burnt out offering answers to this type of question. But here are some potentially useful links. This short editorial was written during the summer but it still give the basic picture. This longer article, which I think is well worth reading, explains what is so unprecedented and dangerous about a pre-emptive war doctrine.

Hope these help the confusion and frustration, which I do understand.

3

War is justified or “not wrong” when waged in self defence. This war, however, is one massive superpower invading another sovereign country because it wants to. It makes me sick really and I’m kind of glad I’m not Australian so I don’t have to feel responsible for voting for Mr. Howard.

4

Short answer: We are fighting a pre-emptive war of aggression against a second rate power half way around the world because our leaders in Washington are scared to death about what the leader of Iraq might to do us at some unspecified point in the distant future with weapons of mass distruction that he may or may not actually possess.

5

No, I haven’t missed those, really. They’re a very large part of the reason I’m leaning the way I do now, in fact. Here on the SDMB I can get both sides honest opinions, and it’s meant a lot to someone like me, who’s still working on getting the fencepost out of my butt. :slight_smile:

6

For me, it’s pretty simple. I think the world will be less safe after this war, based on how it is being executed.

I really don’t have a problem with the US being the world’s policeman, but we should have a clear mandate from the international community before committing to do so.

Otherwise, it’s vigilantism.

I’m no peacenik. Now that hostilities have started, I think we need to finish the job and live with the consequences. Not finishing now would make the world even less safe.

7

The world would be less safe by taking out a fascist and his terrorist training camps?

Just give peace in Iraq a chance. While we are accidently killing civilians, that is only temporary. Keeping Saddam in power any longer will just result in more death for a new generation.

Why is there a double standard in the international society. If George Bush tourtured Americans, the world will be down his throat, while Saddam could continue as he pleases. Lets please stop ignoring the actions of militants and fascists and tyrants in the Middle East and Africa once and for all.

8

By the way, it looks like I’m directly addressing AZCowboy, but I’m not. It’s to people who are against the war for peace (and who also commonly use that excuse)

9

OK, ApathyMan, and I see it isn’t directed at me.

Where do you go next? Where do you draw the line? Specifically, is China on your list somewhere?

The US is now a check without a balance.

And, yes, I think the world will be less safe, especially for Americans.

10

I realize that you asked that question to some one else , but not that long ago , china and the US were squaring off against each other for the p-3 orion tha was forced down.

China cannot be dealt with the same way that Iraq is being dealt with , its got too much depth to seriously imagine that anyone would want to get involved in an asian land war anymore ,with out seriously concidering tac nukes.

But letting China get away with murder is not the ansewer either,the State Department has to have the option of military force to back up its strengthing of the peace, other wise you just end up looking like Canada.

Declan

11

Along these lines, see this thread.

I tend to agree. That is the horrible part of war is that it is such an irreversible step! Just a couple weeks ago, we had lots of potentially viable options open to us. Now, from where I look at things, the available options seem to range from incredibly sucky to worse than that.

12

Great Britain invaded mighty China to expand the opium trade in 1840 and 1842. Surely even the US would come up with a better reason to invade.

13

So capacitor, which reason(s) do you want? Do you want the leftist reasons of “It’s about Oil, and vengeance for Pappy!”, the conservative reason “It’s about Iraqi liberation, removal of a homicidal dictator, and the disarmament of Iraq”, or the realistic answer of “all of the above”?

14

No, I want consistency in policy, without the blatant power grab. I want new governments built in countries that serves best the interest of all the people living in it, not be a Sugar Shack or Banana Republic or a Oil Well or a Nike Factory that serves another bigger country, who would turn a blind eye to atrocities for the sake of profit.

Everybody but everybody wants Saddam to go, even conscientious objectors. What they want is to do the regime change without Crusades X happening, which is about to if not already.

15

Upon more reflection, I feel that I did not properly address the argument that is suggested in this thought, commonly used by the pro-war faction (so likewise, ApathyMan, this isn’t directed at you).

I know analogies often fail in GD, but I can’t resist using one to reinforce the point I made above.

Why is there a double standard? Because the US is the equivalent of the “sheriff”, and Saddam is the equivalent of a known criminal - a mafia boss. We expect the sheriff to uphold the law, and we are not surprised when the mafia boss breaks it.

The effect of this pro-war position is the equivalent of stating, “all criminals should be put behind bars”. Hardly controversial.

The problem is the process. In this case, the US is a “self appointed sheriff”, and does not have a mandate from the community he is supposedly protecting.

We can’t be judge, jury, and exectioner, and still claim any moral highground.

16

Not to mention that sheriffs have been know to use the power of thier position for unpure purposes, the possible extent of which is unclear in our present situation. Also, in law enforcement it is generally not a factor that innocent people are at stake in the process of upholding the law.

17

[ul]
[li]Because it heightens tensions in a region that can little afford to inch closer to teh precipice.[/li][li]Because it is not in the best long term interests of the American people.[/li][li]Because there has been no coherent plan set forth for what the “new Iraq” will look like, so we can not even reliably argue that it will be in the best long term interests of the Iraqi people.[/li][li]Because by undermining our moral authority to act internationally we restrict our options not just today, but in the future. [/li][li]Becuase when evaluating the threats of future terrorist attacks the existence of a despotic but secular Iraqi government that is our enemy trails far behind providing terrorist organizations a catalyst with which to inspire a large and enraged Muslim population that views the US attack primarily as a move of conquest with suspicious motives, not as a “war of liberation”.[/li][/ul]

18

This is pretty much my feeling, too. The war was unavoidable. It is necessary to use force to take out Hussein.

My problem is that Dubya, the paragon of diplomatic finese :rolleyes: , charged in without a UN Security Council mandate. I feel, after giving the inspectors a chance, the Security Council would have agreed to invade. Instead, he played the cowboy and went in, guns a-blazing.

Now we have our usual allies against us, as well as world opinion. They see us as nothing more than a bully. Any good will we might have had in the middle east will evaporate (if it hasn’t already). After the fighting is done and Hussein is either dead or on trial in the Hague, there will still be holy hell to pay for this.

I think we’ve made a diplomatic blunder the scope of which has yet to be fully realized. :frowning:

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**[ul][li]Because there has been no coherent plan set forth for what the “new Iraq” will look like, so we can not even reliably argue that it will be in the best long term interests of the Iraqi people.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]

I have doubts about this statement, Spiritus. No, I haven’t seen a plan, and the fact that you’ve made this statement tells me that you haven’t either. That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. I find it difficult to believe that the US would just go in there, oust Hussein, and then just bolt, leaving Iraq to twist in the wind. I mean, once Hussein is gotten rid of, we’re certainly not going to want to just leave Iraq open to be taken over again in the same manner as Hussein did.

20

For the civilians in question, it’s quite permanent. Death is not temporary.

It’s also going to be very permanent for the American soldiers who are going to die in the military occupation of Iraq as a result of terrorist attacks. You can expect YEARS of that.