War in Iraq?

[Aquaignis]

NextGenerationLunarFan wrote:
Maybe we're electing the wrong officials then. Perhaps we should elect the people who would do nothing. However, the USA is not just any country. The USA is dedicated to helping any country that wants democracy or threatens democracy.


So, therefore, we have the right to go in and decide what sacrifices other people should make?

That is not what I meant. I meant that the United States does not sit back and just ignore other parts of the world like we did in the beginning of WWI.

[Dark_Fairy]

In my opinion we should just leave other countries alone as long as they have done nothing to us. War only leads to more problems in some cases.

Now as for going into other countries and changing things (Government or otherwise) around...I think that's the wrong thing to do. That country should decide what its going to do on its own. Some of the people in that country might not like that. It could also lead to cultural problems or perhaps conflicts with what those people believe in. Most people want to stick with their heritage and/or religious beliefs and don't want to change that. Its kind of like someone coming to America and changing us into different form of government. Would we be happy? Probably not. Going into other countries also leads to troops getting killed because they are trying to go against what those people want.

As for the War in Iraq, now that my general opinion on wars and going into other countries to try and "help it" has been said, if you couldn't tell by my opinion above, I have never been for this war. Since we ARE in the war however, all I can say is to the very least is to try and settle things in a manner where our troops can come home soon. Many people (Troops and the people of Iraq) have died in this war and many more will die.

I'm not really sure how many people in Iraq are FOR or NOT FOR the war so I can't really say what the people's opinion living in Iraq are.

Another note is that the war is not good on Iraq or America economically.

[Kizyr]

NextGenerationLunarFan wrote:
Maybe we're electing the wrong officials then. Perhaps we should elect the people who would do nothing. However, the USA is not just any country. The USA is dedicated to helping any country that wants democracy or threatens democracy.


So, therefore, we have the right to go in and decide what sacrifices other people should make?

That is not what I meant. I meant that the United States does not sit back and just ignore other parts of the world like we did in the beginning of WWI.

Read the remainder of my post after the line that you quoted (you're still not reading them, are you?).

I explained exactly why our interventionist policy in most of the 20th century was full of mistakes. Where it succeeded was where we worked with other nations to achieve a common goal, not when we went off, did our own thing, and demanded cooperation.

I disagree. What our problem is now is that we are heavly dependant on foreign economies and their work froce to produce our goods. In the 1940s, I'm pretty sure the US made most of their own crap. By isolating ourselves, we will force ourselves to reopen long closed factories to start producing cars, electronics, applianances, the list goes on. The only problem I can see is the lack of natural resources to do it. Therefore, a simple solution is to isolate ourselves politically and militarally, but not economically or environmentally.

The US has been importing and exporting goods since the 1600s; that never changed. And after WW2, when we began more aggressively pursuing economic links and trade relations with other countries (it's in the postwar era when the WTO and World Bank were founded), is when we jumped from just a country to a superpower.

We import goods from other countries because it's cheaper and more efficient for them to make it than for us. Isolating ourselves and 'forcing' us to reopen factories that closed ends up with everyone suddenly having to pay high prices for stuff we used to be able to import--you'll see the cost of everything rise at that rate: food, rent, cars, entertainment, electricity, heating, gas, etc. etc. And it's a hard sell to convince 300 million people to suddenly pay 2 or 3 times as much for food, rent, and other bills so that we can reopen decrepit factories--that will likely have to shut down in short order anyway.

Besides, there are also plenty of times when we are asked to intervien, and because we did we get shot in the back. So why should we help others if all they want to do is hate us in the end?

The problem is with intervening when we don't have a clear goal in mind (we also didn't get asked to intervene in Iraq).

We intervened in Bosnia & Herzegovina (1998 about?), and in Kuwait (1991). Both Bosnians and Kuwaitis actually appreciate that.

We intervened in Somalia (1996 about?), and that turned out to be a disaster. Somalia still has an anarchical government and the poverty situation hasn't really improved.

We're actually not that bad when it comes to intervening in the case of one country or nation invading another, as long as there's a clear and precise goal in mind. It's when we go in and try to change a country's domestic situation, usually meaning it's government, is when things get real difficult; everything that was said in the early stages of the war leads me to believe, seriously, that we were badly ignorant of the domestic situation before going in. It's not hopeless, but it's not easy. KF

[phyco126]

I disagree. What our problem is now is that we are heavly dependant on foreign economies and their work froce to produce our goods. In the 1940s, I'm pretty sure the US made most of their own crap. By isolating ourselves, we will force ourselves to reopen long closed factories to start producing cars, electronics, applianances, the list goes on. The only problem I can see is the lack of natural resources to do it. Therefore, a simple solution is to isolate ourselves politically and militarally, but not economically or environmentally.

The US has been importing and exporting goods since the 1600s; that never changed. And after WW2, when we began more aggressively pursuing economic links and trade relations with other countries (it's in the postwar era when the WTO and World Bank were founded), is when we jumped from just a country to a superpower.

We import goods from other countries because it's cheaper and more efficient for them to make it than for us. Isolating ourselves and 'forcing' us to reopen factories that closed ends up with everyone suddenly having to pay high prices for stuff we used to be able to import--you'll see the cost of everything rise at that rate: food, rent, cars, entertainment, electricity, heating, gas, etc. etc. And it's a hard sell to convince 300 million people to suddenly pay 2 or 3 times as much for food, rent, and other bills so that we can reopen decrepit factories--that will likely have to shut down in short order anyway.

Besides, there are also plenty of times when we are asked to intervien, and because we did we get shot in the back. So why should we help others if all they want to do is hate us in the end?

The problem is with intervening when we don't have a clear goal in mind (we also didn't get asked to intervene in Iraq).

We intervened in Bosnia & Herzegovina (1998 about?), and in Kuwait (1991). Both Bosnians and Kuwaitis actually appreciate that.

We intervened in Somalia (1996 about?), and that turned out to be a disaster. Somalia still has an anarchical government and the poverty situation hasn't really improved.

Actually, greed is what drives prices up. Look at Henry Ford and the Model T. It was what, probably the only real affordable car for almost all American's living above the absolute lower classes? They didn't import that car over. Also, I haven't heard of refridgerators being imported when they where invented. Of course they where expensive then, it was new technology, and like all new technology, it's expensive to begin with, but as mass production catches up, the price goes down.

Besides, is it alright to cut hundreds of thousands of American workers from their jobs so some other country can produce something instead? So with people out of work, how can they afford that product that some other country makes, no matter how "cheap" it suddenly is.

I also said we can always just isolate ourselves politically and militarally, but not economically. Look at Japan, it's forced pascifist ways prevent it from keeping an active military except for defensive purposes only, and cannot be involved in active military affairs. Yet it still has a very open economy with, I am sure, plenty of exports and imports.

And when I say backstabbing, look at Kuwait. We saved their asses, but right before the war in Iraq a poll was done that showed that over 60% of their country disliked America. I don't exactly call that a warm thanks.

What about Somolia? People said we had no business there, but innocent people where dying. Same thing with Sudan today, it's the modern freaking holocaust, but again "we have no business there." Hmmm, sounds a little familiar, I think something similiar happened in the late 1930s and early to mid 1940s. Can't put my finger on it, but yeah, no one wanted to get involved.

If a girl was being raped on the street and you walked by, would you say "It is not of my concern of this affair" ? People say it is none of our business to interfear with another nation's affairs, but I say it is needed. Granted Iraq is a bit more complicated, and should have been dealt with more carefully, but it doesn't change the fact that this world needs someone to interfear.

Anyone ever watch The Incredibles? When the world turned against the super heros?

[GhaleonOne]

Same thing with Sudan today, it's the modern freaking holocaust, but again "we have no business there."

In regards to Sudan, something NEEDS to be done about that. All this attention from the world is on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. but Sudan almost gets lost in the news, and the Darfur region is in far worse shape than any of those countries right now.

[Kizyr]

Actually, greed is what drives prices up. Look at Henry Ford and the Model T. It was what, probably the only real affordable car for almost all American's living above the absolute lower classes? They didn't import that car over. Also, I haven't heard of refridgerators being imported when they where invented. Of course they where expensive then, it was new technology, and like all new technology, it's expensive to begin with, but as mass production catches up, the price goes down.

Where are you getting this from? Greed doesn't drive prices up (unless someone has a monopoly). Increased demand will. (EDIT: Excess demand, particularly when the supply is insufficient, will drive prices up. The only way a producer can really, and effectively, price-gouge out of greed is when that producer has a monopoly or near-monopoly on a certain good, or producers collude with one another.)

Your example with Ford doesn't apply to your argument, either... In Ford's time, the average American couldn't afford a car; it was Ford who a) implemented mass production with cars, and b) paid his workers a wage high enough to afford to even buy a car. That was also 60 years ago. Right now, foreign auto companies employ as many or more people in the US than the 'big three' US auto companies (so you can't make the argument that one or the other is 'hurting Americans'); and since people aren't willing to pay thousands of dollars more for a car that's less fuel-efficient and lasts half as long, US companies aren't doing well. Also, I don't see what point your fridge example has...

Anyway, bottom line is, cars make for a bad example.

Besides, is it alright to cut hundreds of thousands of American workers from their jobs so some other country can produce something instead? So with people out of work, how can they afford that product that some other country makes, no matter how "cheap" it suddenly is.

Actually, yes, it is. Because keeping those hundreds of thousands of workers in the same jobs ends up costing millions of other workers way too much, and risks their jobs as well. Artificially supporting certain industries ends up having a lot of crappy effects further on through the economy, because you're essentially taxing everyone else (directly, or indirectly through allowing for higher prices).

This really is a tangential point, though, since you were talking about political/military isolation, not economic isolation... If you really want to pursue the point, I'm game, but I might start getting into a lot of economics terms.

I also said we can always just isolate ourselves politically and militarally, but not economically. Look at Japan...

That's a good point to make. Unfortunately, and realistically (this is why I do understand some pro-war arguments, although I still dislike this war) I don't think we're in a position to do that as a superpower. Our political and military meddling is what gets us into a lot of messes, but I have a strong believe that, as long as we a) work in cooperation with most other countries, and b) use military force as an absolute last resort, then we can exert a much more positive influence on the rest of the world.

And when I say backstabbing, look at Kuwait. We saved their asses, but right before the war in Iraq a poll was done that showed that over 60% of their country disliked America. I don't exactly call that a warm thanks.

You're looking at completely the wrong question! If it asked "do you appreciate the US helping Kuwait in the Gulf War?" then it would have been accurate to apply it in this circumstance. The response to that question is just about opinions regarding the Iraq War.

Say, if someone saves my life, and then two years later goes and beats an old lady, it's not like I'm going to have a favorable opinion of the guy, even if he did save my life once.

Furthermore, does that poll include only Kuwaiti citizens? Does it include migrant workers (who comprise 2/3 of the population)? It's an extremely ambiguous response...

What about Somolia? People said we had no business there, but innocent people where dying. Same thing with Sudan today, it's the modern freaking holocaust, but again "we have no business there." Hmmm, sounds a little familiar, I think something similiar happened in the late 1930s and early to mid 1940s. Can't put my finger on it, but yeah, no one wanted to get involved.

We entered WW2 because Nazi Germany had already invaded 3 or 4 countries, allied itself with Imperial Japan, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (not to mention had already occupied Korea and China, and took over Philippines--then a US territory--three days later). No one knew the extent of the holocaust until we'd begun liberating France and Poland from the Nazis. WW2 was a completely different circumstance than anything right now. Countries were invading others, and we went in with several allies on our side. We knew what our objectives were, went in, and accomplished them. Even with the Gulf War, we knew what our goal was, we allied with other countries, and accomplished what we set out to do. There's really no way you can draw a comparison between WW2 and any current conflict...

We went into Somalia because there was impending famine and a horrible humanitarian situation, that was perpetuated by constant domestic warfare. The intentions were good, but the result was awful. It should be seriously considered when people are talking about intervention in Darfur. Even if we have good intentions, if we go in without understanding what it is we're doing, or what are the causes of the situation we're trying to alleviate, it can turn out disastrous. KF

[exigence]

crap kizyr you raped his argument then smoked a cig and went back in. thats exactly why i've stayed out of the whole war in Iraq thing *cough-pro-war-cough-cough*.

[Kizyr]

crap kizyr you raped his argument then smoked a cig and went back in. thats exactly why i've stayed out of the whole war in Iraq thing *cough-pro-war-cough-cough*.

I think if you'd been in this discussion, I doubt I would've been able to underst--respond to any of your points.

Anyway, Phyco does make a few good points (maybe not the economics ones), and he did throw me a curveball with the Somalia-Darfur comparison. It doesn't apply to the Iraq war specifically, but it really made me think. Just because I disagree and argue against someone doesn't mean I think any less of them. KF

[Aquaignis]

I should have stayed out of it too. Either I just can't seem to express my opinion just right or Kizyr is just interpreting them wrong, and I doubt it is the latter. So, to start over in a nutshell, I am for the war the war on terror. I am not so much excited that we are still in Iraq, but we may as well stay until the job gets done. Hopefully, it won't end up 20 years later and the Iraqis hate us like the Vietnamese do. Though, if Operation Iraqi Freedom does work, then they won't hate us.

[phyco126]

crap kizyr you raped his argument then smoked a cig and went back in. thats exactly why i've stayed out of the whole war in Iraq thing *cough-pro-war-cough-cough*.

Just because I disagree and argue against someone doesn't mean I think any less of them. KF

Agreed, the same goes for me. The problem is learning how to not take anything as a personal attack, instead to look at it as a simple point that should be considered.

Hopefully, it won't end up 20 years later and the Iraqis hate us like the Vietnamese do.

I'm not exactly uptodate with how Vietnamese may feel about us, so I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no hard-felt feelings. I recall a program that had interviews with top military officers in the Vietnamese military who fought against Americans, but had no hard feelings against us, and hoped that we can put the past behind us and learn to be friends.

Kiz, I would continue the arguement with cutting workers out of work and stuff, but economical talks give me headaches. Perhapes another day we can have this discussion.

[Kizyr]

I should have stayed out of it too. Either I just can't seem to express my opinion just right or Kizyr is just interpreting them wrong, and I doubt it is the latter. So, to start over in a nutshell, I am for the war the war on terror. I am not so much excited that we are still in Iraq, but we may as well stay until the job gets done.

I'm not gonna argue any points any longer, but I do want to clarify something... I'm not about trying to prove people wrong, so much as I want folks to think critically about the conclusions they draw. That's why I talk about history, politics, and logic a lot in my responses. What I think is based on my understanding of history and politics; so, when other folks base their conclusions on something that's inaccurate, I'll readily point it out.

It may be that the reason you're having a hard time articulating your opinion is that it's based more on personal feelings than on more objective, mutually understood things. If you were to do more research--both on history, and on current events (although the latter from various sources)--you might find it easier to articulate what you think. You might change your mind, or you might come to the same conclusion as you do right now, just with a stronger foundation.

Though it's not like you have to cite sources for everything you say. I mean, this isn't a research paper, and you can pretty much Wikipedia a lot of things about history, at the very least. Sometimes great points can be made just based on logically carrying out something to its conclusion--though that also takes some thinking beforehand.

This discussion so far has been a mix of that... I'll point out things that are inaccurate when they're the basis for a given opinion. I'll also argue on the other side of some opinions when they're based on less definite things, like morality, or a different interpretation of history or current events; but those arguments take a much different tone.

I'm not exactly uptodate with how Vietnamese may feel about us, so I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no hard-felt feelings. I recall a program that had interviews with top military officers in the Vietnamese military who fought against Americans, but had no hard feelings against us, and hoped that we can put the past behind us and learn to be friends.

I actually recall some of the same things. It's jumping to conclusions to think that the Vietnamese all hate us, or even that most do.

Kiz, I would continue the arguement with cutting workers out of work and stuff, but economical talks give me headaches. Perhapes another day we can have this discussion.

Maybe... I don't mean this to sound arrogant, but I am an economist, so I've been working with a lot of these terms and concepts since I started studying economics in college. So things like monopolies, demand, etc., have clear-cut definitions for me. That also lends itself to my own conservative stance when it comes to most economics issues.

Basic thing is, I really do think any discussion along those lines is going to turn into me trying to explain a lot of concepts that I'm working off of, and I'll eventually be tempted to start drawing graphs, at which point nobody's gonna listen any longer {^^}. There are some arguments to be made on your side based on other economic theories, but yeah, that'd turn into more explanations... KF

[Aquaignis]

I'm glad people point out that some (or most)of the things I say are wrong. I actually know a little about what I am talking about, but I just can't seem to be able to write it down without thinking about it for a while. Sometimes when people correct me, I look back at my previous post and think "I am such an idiot", because I can see that it is wrong then.
I shouldn't have wrote about the Vietnamese hating the U.S. First of all I know that it would be insanely ignorant to think that ALL Viet. hate the U.S. I based that on a tv. program I saw on HINT several years ago. It could be that I just don't remember it correctly. After all I think I was 12 when I saw it.

[Alunissage]

I'll de-lurk (as far as this discussion is concerned) to say that I've really found this thread interesting. I haven't had much of an interest in or paid much attention to politics and world events, but in the last few months I ended up reading a bit more about the current state of affairs. One thing I may as well mention is that JWL's phrasing about reasons for the war in Iraq raised a flag: "there were three reasons given..." Publicly articulated reasons are only superficially related to actual reasons, and names of operations will obviously be chosen with PR in mind, not honesty. There may have been administrations we could trust to say what they mean, but this isn't one of them.

Richard A. Clarke, who was head of counterterrorism for three Presidents and worked for the two before that as well, has written a book about 9/11, events and preparations before then, and actions and fallout after then. He relates how very soon after 9/11, maybe even on the same day, Bush pulled him aside and told him to find ways to link the attacks to Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was discussed in the first months of his presidency, long before September.

[GhaleonOne]

A little bit of a side note, but has anyone been keeping up with the Iranian "hostage" situation, where some British navy officers have been detained by Iran for supposedly entering Iranian water space? I personally think Iran should stop being obnoxious and release the soldiers. There is absolutely no reason for them to be held other than the Iranian government trying to use it to their advantage. First, they come out with GPS coordinates as to where the soldiers were detained, then after finding out the coordinates were in Iraqi water space, and not Iranian, then backtrack and change the coordinates to 2 miles into Iranian water space. That's pretty fishy, and now to come out make a demand that Britain publicly confess that they're in the wrong is a load of crap. There is absolutely no reason for Iran to hold those officers. At all.

[Werefrog]

A little bit of a side note, but has anyone been keeping up with the Iranian "hostage" situation...

Wait... wasn't that over twenty-years ago? Oh... different situation.

[JWL]

One thing I may as well mention is that JWL's phrasing about reasons for the war in Iraq raised a flag: "there were three reasons given..." Publicly articulated reasons are only superficially related to actual reasons, and names of operations will obviously be chosen with PR in mind, not honesty. There may have been administrations we could trust to say what they mean, but this isn't one of them.

So your argument is that the reasons given for the Iraq War, which were given to us by the president during the 2003 State of the Union address, and then again in a speech prior to the beginning of the war, and dozens of times since then, are not the "actual" reasons for the war. Wow.

One thing that really irritates me is when people tell us that our original goal was to find the WMDs, and then when that didn't pan out, we decided to depose Saddam, and then when that didn't have the result we liked, we decided to try to bring freedom to Iraq. As I said, all three of those reasons were stated prior to the beginning of the war.

One of my favorite arguments is that President Bush knew all along that there were no WMDs in Iraq. In other words, the argument is that Bush is such an idiot that he staked his presidency on something he knew to be a lie which would almost certainly be revealed to be a lie before the next election... and he did this all for political gain...?!?!

I think that people should carefully watch over what their government is doing, but I also think that they should be honest about it. Critics expect the government to be honest, and the least the critics can do in return is be honest.

Richard A. Clarke, who was head of counterterrorism for three Presidents and worked for the two before that as well, has written a book about 9/11, events and preparations before then, and actions and fallout after then. He relates how very soon after 9/11, maybe even on the same day, Bush pulled him aside and told him to find ways to link the attacks to Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was discussed in the first months of his presidency, long before September.

Actually regime change in Iraq was first discussed in 1998, when the Clinton Administration made it our national policy.

But I'm not sure it makes sense to completely dismiss anything the Bush Administration says as suspicious and then accept the words of Richard Clarke as gospel. Was not Clarke a member of the very same administration you condemn? If you accept his word, then surely you must also accept the word of another man who served in numerous administrations - Donald Rumsfeld.

[Parn]

There is absolutely no reason for Iran to hold those officers. At all.

Well, actually there is... they're testing the western powers, seeing how far they can push and how we'll react.

[phyco126]

There is absolutely no reason for Iran to hold those officers. At all.

Well, actually there is... they're testing the western powers, seeing how far they can push and how we'll react.

Two words: Friendship rings.

[Alunissage]

Actually regime change in Iraq was first discussed in 1998, when the Clinton Administration made it our national policy.

But I'm not sure it makes sense to completely dismiss anything the Bush Administration says as suspicious and then accept the words of Richard Clarke as gospel. Was not Clarke a member of the very same administration you condemn? If you accept his word, then surely you must also accept the word of another man who served in numerous administrations - Donald Rumsfeld.

You're reading way too much into what I said. I didn't say any of that discussion about Iraq was the first time it came up, just that there was effort to find links between the WTC attack and Iraq from the start, from a source who was not a political appointee of a specific administration. I have no particular reason to assume he made up the conversation he related of whole cloth; that is not as slippery a thing as reasons and motivations for doing things.

Also, I don't see how talks in 2001 of invading Iraq conflict with the possibility that the 2003 SotU address mentioned only the more politically palatable reasons for doing so. (I'm only going by what you said regarding the address; I don't remember it.) But I'm not saying any of this to get into an argument; I just wanted to point out that politics is PR and you have to consider that the reasons a politician gives for an action are not necessarily the whole story.

[JWL]

You're reading way too much into what I said. I didn't say any of that discussion about Iraq was the first time it came up, just that there was effort to find links between the WTC attack and Iraq from the start, from a source who was not a political appointee of a specific administration. I have no particular reason to assume he made up the conversation he related of whole cloth; that is not as slippery a thing as reasons and motivations for doing things.

Indeed; rather you assume that those who offer an opposing story to that of Richard Clarke are the liars. What reason would Clarke have to lie? Well, how about in order to peddle the very book in which he made the claim? I'm not saying that he did make it up, just that it's not exactly logical to say, those folks in that administration are all liars... except for that Clarke guy.

Also, I don't see how talks in 2001 of invading Iraq conflict with the possibility that the 2003 SotU address mentioned only the more politically palatable reasons for doing so. (I'm only going by what you said regarding the address; I don't remember it.) But I'm not saying any of this to get into an argument; I just wanted to point out that politics is PR and you have to consider that the reasons a politician gives for an action are not necessarily the whole story.

Well, if you know the "real" reason for the Iraq War, then by all means, enlighten us. You seem to possess some arcane knowledge obtained via a mysterious process. If you know the real reasons for other wars, too - especially World War II and the Civil War - I'm all ears.