Iraqi War

[Tare]

The last thread I believe was solely about Saddam Hussein so here's a new thread about the entire war.

I still disagree with the war because no matter what pro came out of this whole war for the Iraqi people on the extreme long run Iraq will just get all it's wealth sucked up by the U.S. (specifically, The Bush/Cheney Texas Oil Co. ) Here's a visual aid:

Short run: (Bad) Iraqi people are more violent and disorderly, lots of murder and such because of differences, American/foreign soldiers dying, etc.
Long Run: (Good) The people will settle down, (hopefully) there'll be a democratic government, and Iraqi will have more than enough money to run things smoothly
Extreme long run: (Bad) U.S. will start sucking up Iraqi wealth like a leech just like Hussein did (especially Bush/Cheney), traditional Iraqi life will be gone (modernization and internationalization will make Iraq full of McDonalds and Starbucks), people will immigrate to Iraq too much, they will never fit into the Muslim society of the world again, and overall Iraq will become an American colony.

Now some of the opinions here are a bit radical but I think it captures the general idea...

[gauss202]

My opinion on the war is that it was primarily waged out of fear (some parts rational and some parts irratoinal). I believe that Bush had genuine motives of protecting the country when he made his decision - though perhaps clouded by his personal feelings too. Whether that decision was well measured will be the source of endless debate.

There was a series of events before the invasion of Iraq that I think scared the administration greatly. The (still unresolved) anthrax attacks, missing viles of bubonic plague from labs in Virgina, the visit of a Small Pox scientist from the former Soviet Union to Iraq... lots of probably unrelated incidents that I think put biological terrorist attacks high on the minds of Bush and his advisors.

I think his decision was also influenced by the outcome in Afghanistan, and how (relatively) smoothly that war and occupation had gone. I think he believed that Iraq would go similarly. So it was seemingly a no-lose situation in the administration's mind. On the one hand, if they were right that Iraq was a threat - they would have eliminated it. And on the other hand, if they were wrong and Iraq wasn't a threat - who cares! No one could prove it because no one would believe Saddam anyway, and we would at least reap the perceived benefits of establishing a new form of government and a potential long term middle eastern ally to replace Saudi Arabia.

Whether the invasion was a good idea? Ultimately, I don't think so because it sets a really bad precedent for foreign policy. Not that our foreign policy was all that coherent to begin with, but I think this sets a particularly ill conceived one. The doctrine of pre-emption leads to more instability than it creates. It allows states to basically attack each other based on perceived threats.

If that were adopted by other nations you would have worldwide chaos. India and Pakistan would have obliterated each other a long time ago under such a doctrine. And basically it is a doctrine based on the principle of fear. Whatever happened to the saying, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself?" Decisions based on fear are not always the most well thought out or the most rational.

Some good will probably come out of the war - particularly for many of the Iraqi people (but also some bad consequences). I don't think it makes America safer in any way, though. Partly because I do not believe that Iraq was a threat to us to begin with; and secondly, because if they did have WMD they are now unaccounted for and possibly in the hands of people that they otherwise wouldn't have been. Not to mention that this has desensitized our allies to our fight against terrorism, and it has incited many more people against us (even within our own borders).

[Tare]

Here's a little something from freerangegraphics

Food for thought: It seems as though the newly established Department of Homeland Security is doing everything it can to make America on guard and secure. However they do so by creating fear with the help of the conservative medias. If Saddam Hussein united and created a stable government by striking fear into his own people so that they are less rebellious how different are Bush any different from Hussein?

[confuted]

[gauss202]

I think this war was very distinct from those. Those, for the most part, were humanitarian missions to stop ongoing genicides. This war was not for that reason. It was explicitly sold as a war of pre-emption - which to the best of my knowledge, is unique in modern times.

[JBL]

Somalia and Boznia-Herznogovena -- a war or major conflict was already taking place, and teh U.S. stepped in in an attempt to restore order.
Yugoslavia -- similar to above, plus all the troops were NATO troops, meaning there was agreement among several nations for the military action.
Afghanistan -- reasonable ties existed between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Given the chance to give up bin Laden to avoid war, the Taliban refused.
The Gulf War -- war already begun by Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. International cooperation in military action.

Note also that in all examples other than Afghanistan, we didn't set about occupying the nation where our troops ended up. At most there were NATO or UN troops there, not American troops.

Iraq 2 -- none of the above conditions apply. (I mean, okay, there are a couple of other nations with troops in Iraq. Ignoring Britian, however, I have to say that the list of remaining nations does not strike me as similar to the list of most powerful countries on earth.) Most notably, there was no military or pseudo-military event (incl. civil war or major act of terrorism) that was linked in any way to the invasion.

That's the precedent.

[confuted]

[confuted]

[ComplexZeta]

[JBL]

As for the point about conservative media -- gimme a break, both of you. By and large, the media in this country is remarkably non-partisan -- they report what they think will sell papers. It's easy to bring claims of media bias on either side. Personally, I feel the media tends to be a bit conservative (Fox news, by the way, is practically propaganda, as is nearly everything else Rupert Murdoch owns. The New York Post is everything but an official RNC newsletter. Anyhow ...) but I have an admitted leftist bias myself. It's worth noting that this country as a whole is far more centrist now than in the past -- there aren't any more people running on segregationist lines, and there aren't any more people running on communist lines. I happen to feel we've shifted rightward from 40 years ago, and would be happy to fashion examples supporting my claim. I also know people on the right feel exactly the opposite, and can also provide examples of their own. This is a discussion not worth having.


As for the 63 nations: how many of them have contributed anything more than their signature? In an effort to raise money from nations for Iraq, we raised -- get this -- all of 2 billion dollars. We're spending more than that every month. Compare that to our share of the NATO missions.

More significant, however, is the lack of any ongoing conflict. And don't give me that nonsense about the Iraqi genocide as a conflict that we got involved in, either -- Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad shaking Saddam Hussein's hand when that was going on.

[mathfanatic]

I object to people putting up links to effective internet petitions on this site. The "food for thought" that Tare linked to is not just some little idea meant to get you thinking; instead, it is a full-fledged advertisement encouraging people to support a certain view on American policy and providing people with a means of showing their support. I don't know what "click here" does because I haven't tried doing so, but I don't like it...

I don't think we should go about posting links that advertise political, religious, etc. beliefs. Just think what could happen when the 2004 elections roll around! (I really don't want to see links on www.artofproblemsolving.com to "Bush 2004 Campaign Videos" or "Support Lieberman for President, 2004" or "Dean 2004" or whoever it'll be...)

[Tare]

Wow maybe because of this heated argument you got a fever
But really if you're sick then get some rest, this argument won't go anywhere for a while.

Oh please! I'd say some of the Bush side's a bad thing:
"Invaded Afghanistan... to remove terrorists. Was welcomed by the people of the country."
Yeah except for the fact that many casualties were caused and the anti-U.S. feelings grew stronger. Again if you consider that a warm welcome then you do have a point there.

"Invaded Iraq... to remove terrorists and overthrow a dictator. Was welcomed by the people of the country."
That is what the media has shown us, yes, but now that we have other sources other than the TV and the radio I'm pretty sure you can dig up some article about what it was really like when the U.S. arrived. Most locked their doors and didn't go outside while others were happy for a while then really sad at the state their country was in: Homes blew up, everything but the oil wells blown up (now I wonder who's order that was :evil:) not to mention the fact they practically ignored most of the request of help of the looting of several important buildings yet they did nothing and it'll take years to clean that up. Again if you completely trust the media to be liberal (which is what they and the politicians say; have you have any thoughts about whetehr or not they could be working together?)

As for the list of inhumane murder you can add that Bush killed thousands of civillians (can't quite say they were innocent bystanders since they could've been Bin Laden/Hussein supporters but at least most of them didn't take up arms in Iraq; besides the U.S. killed 'em anyway just like the British didn't care which colonist they killed whether they're a loyalist or a patriot)
Also speaking of human rights violation have you read anything about what the U.S. do to people who are even accused of being a terrorist and they become convinced that they in fact are? I don't blame you if you don't know this because it's hard to find with it being hidden so well but maybe you should at least give it a go and see where that'll get you.

Heh 63 African countries are nothing to a couple of developed nations.

[mathfanatic]

Don't be silly. The 63 countries weren't all African. And besides, who are you to call African countries "nothing"? I'm sure the leaders and inhabitants alike of such countries would be pretty insulted by that one.

[Tare]

Just 'yoking...still I believe he didn't get a lot of European support...(as in power not number)

[mathfanatic]

There's a lot of confusion between when you're joking and when you're not. For instance:

Name It! Ways to Torture Saddam Hussein
- Tare says it was all in fun
- confuted and mathfanatic are highly disturbed. Someone removes it.

The 63 countries supporting the Iraqi reformation are largely African, and are "nothing" compared to developed countries.
- Tare was 'yoking. (This sounds a lot like IW.OAV: good or bad?)
- an insult?

Methinks you should either
1) make a big distinction between "joking" and "serious", the way MysticTerminator does
2) be serious all the time, the way confuted does

I think the second option is preferable, since if you continue to joke you will make off-color statements and inevitably won't be believed when you do try to be serious.

[Chinaboy]

I completely concur.

[Syntax Error]

and if youre joking anyways, dont put it. once again, this is for serious discussions

[MysticTerminator]

[Ravi B]

My understanding is that more than 3000 civilians have been killed in the war on Afghanistan. More than 8000 civilians have been killed in the war on Iraq. To put those numbers in perspective, their total is more than four times the number of people killed in the September 11 attacks. Not many casualties? Only if you view September 11 as having few victims.

[confuted]

Japan's troops are on their way to Iraq.