War in Iraq?

[Aquaignis]

Though I am a christian and believe in the ten commandments, I support the war in Iraq completely. Most religions tell us that we should be peaceful, but a wise person knows that there can be no peace without war. It is for the greater good.

[Sonic#]

Though I am a christian and believe in the ten commandments, I support the war in Iraq completely. Most religions tell us that we should be peaceful, but a wise person knows that there can be no peace without war. It is for the greater good.

I have no proof to the contrary (that there can be peace without war). But, even if what you say is true, I'm not convinced that this is the right war. If EVERY war were for the greater good, then the next step would be to unleash our nuclear arsenals. I mean, that's one way to start a war. It'd be the most spectacular and brief war ever. So, obviously every war isn't right. What makes it right? Your greater good?

What makes this one for the greater good? What are we fighting for? What are we fighting against? I've heard a lot of answers to these two questions. I have a third that gets less addressed. Does this help people?

On the one hand, we did depose someone who wasn't a peachy leader (under false pretenses, albeit), but then again, he did manage to keep order. He was oppressive, but there wasn't the risk of firefights and bombs, smashed infrastructures, flooded hospitals.

I find that one of the things I don't see that much in what I read or watch (and this may be because I'm busy most of the time) is someone asking an Iraqi how this war serves them. Any of them. After all, we were the invading force. We are now the occupying force. It is easy for us to justify our presence there (or not), it is easy for us to say we made a mistake (or not), but if we don't see what they think about it, then for all we know, we're doodling pretty pictures on a map that reflects nothing of the landscape our friends, family, compatriots are in, let alone what those people are in. (Two people can occupy the same space and be in very different places or positions.)

I'm lucky to have a columnist here that has lived there, and still has family there, and is able to write about those experiences. But my view isn't total. Based on what she says, I would tend to say that we need to reexamine what we're doing, and try to establish trust with Iraqis as a whole... which is difficult and risky, if you can't even tell a civilian from a militant.

Perhaps I've ranted, but I think that a vague greater good is a mistaken premise, and the only way to ask for a greater good is to not only ask how it serves us, but to ask them.

[Aquaignis]

Not every war is good, no, like the American Cival War. We do not use nuclear weapons because we try NOT to kill innocents and they are extremely harmful to the environment. How are we supposed to know what the Iraqi people think about the war? The news on the television doesn't show that. I would love to know what the majority of Middle Easterners sincerely think about the war.

In the terms of the "greater good", the people leading the war on terrorism believe that Iraq is a potential danger and want to make it a democratic nation. Even if the majority of the Iraqi people don't want the Amercans in their country, we are trying to help the world. That is what I meant by the "greater good".

[JWL]

We do not use nuclear weapons because we try NOT to kill innocents and they are extremely harmful to the environment.

Regardless of what anyone's personal feelings are on the war, it cannot be denied that Coalition forces have for the most part bent over backwards in their efforts to not hurt or kill innocents. Terrorists take advantage of this, and that is largely the reason why the war has gone on for such a long time. What a sick irony.

[Mog Dragonheart]

Thanks for your replies but from what I've gathered even further more truthfully is that it's Saudi Arabian Terrorists causing all the trouble in Iraq. It was mostly Saudi Arabian Terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and it's Saudi Arabia who harbors these terrorists and treats enemies of our Nation as friends before us.

So if this is all true, why was there all this hooplah in the press about invading Iran? Why are we curtailing Saudi Arabia? Does the World get most of their oil from Saudi Arabia?

[Werefrog]

In the terms of the "greater good", the people leading the war on terrorism believe that Iraq is a potential danger and want to make it a democratic nation. Even if the majority of the Iraqi people don't want the Amercans in their country, we are trying to help the world. That is what I meant by the "greater good".

And they have good reason to think that too. I mean, what with all the weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaeda that we found.

[Imperial Knight]

Whatever good intentions may have led to this war, good intentions alone cannot justify a war. And while wars are sometimes necessary, that again does not justify a specific war. Ultimately, nothing has managed to convince me that this specific war is necessary.

[Kizyr]

Thanks for your replies but from what I've gathered even further more truthfully is that it's Saudi Arabian Terrorists causing all the trouble in Iraq. It was mostly Saudi Arabian Terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and it's Saudi Arabia who harbors these terrorists and treats enemies of our Nation as friends before us.

Ok, quite frankly, where the hell are you getting your information from?

Saudi Arabia is the target for the terrorist organizations you're thinking of. You're forgetting that Al-Qaeda itself is strongly against the Saudi monarchy (remember, they think Saud is full of hypocrites for allying itself with the United States and for allowing US troops to station themselves in Saudi Arabia). Bin Laden, also, is a Saudi exile, that means he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and would be arrested if he were caught re-entering.

The only country we pretty much are sure that harbored terrorists was Afghanistan under the Taliban government. As I recall, we sort of invaded that country, too. This is all old information. Is there a five-year cap on your memory or something?

In the terms of the "greater good", the people leading the war on terrorism believe that Iraq is a potential danger and want to make it a democratic nation.

The people leading the war on terror also directly lied about links to Al-Qaeda and WMDs present in Iraq. Neither of which have been proven (and the link to Al-Qaeda, in fact, has been disproven by British intelligence, and bloody common sense considering that Saddam Hussein's ideology is completely different from Bin Laden's).

What bothers me the most is that those were the chief justifications for invading Iraq. You want to make a case about invasion in order to topple a dictatorship and implement a democratic government? That's fine, but that was not the purpose nor intention of invading Iraq in the first place. That's trying to fix things after-the-fact, which is why our troops are still there about 100 times longer than what was originally quoted to us by, say, Rumsfeld and Cheney prior to the invasion.

Even if the majority of the Iraqi people don't want the Amercans in their country, we are trying to help the world. That is what I meant by the "greater good".

This is exactly the reason why much of the world doesn't like us: we go around with the justification that we're helping the world by doing things that everybody else is against. There were periods of time when we worked with the rest of the world, but now we're regressing back to working in spite of the rest of the world; that's a lousy position to take.

And who decides what the "greater good" is, anyway? We certainly don't have that right.

Regardless of what anyone's personal feelings are on the war, it cannot be denied that Coalition forces have for the most part bent over backwards in their efforts to not hurt or kill innocents. Terrorists take advantage of this, and that is largely the reason why the war has gone on for such a long time. What a sick irony.

While I do, personally, believe that, on the whole, Coalition forces have been doing everything in their power to minimize civilian casualties, it still happens. And the problem is that because it's practically accepted as an inevitable outcome of war, it can still look like we're killing civilians intentionally, because whether or not someone was collateral damage won't make a difference to the person who's dead.

I'm not arguing either way here, but I'm just highlighting what makes war such a horrible enterprise to go into. Which is why I still fail to understand what can possess someone to want to go into a war with anything other than reluctant acceptance. KF

[GhaleonOne]

While I do, personally, believe that, on the whole, Coalition forces have been doing everything in their power to minimize civilian casualties, it still happens. And the problem is that because it's practically accepted as an inevitable outcome of war, it can still look like we're killing civilians intentionally, because whether or not someone was collateral damage won't make a difference to the person who's dead.

It also doesn't help when a group of soldiers rape a 14 year old girl and kill her family, then try to cover it up. While that shouldn't be a reflection on the US military, it unfortunately is for so many people. People see that and think the US military as a whole is like that. Those idiot kids did more harm for the image of their country and the military as a whole than any one person could do. Especially to an area of the world that already doesn't seem to interested in our presence.

[Aquaignis]

This is exactly the reason why much of the world doesn't like us: we go around with the justification that we're helping the world by doing things that everybody else is against. There were periods of time when we worked with the rest of the world, but now we're regressing back to working in spite of the rest of the world; that's a lousy position to take.

And who decides what the "greater good" is, anyway? We certainly don't have that right.

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.

[Kizyr]

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?

And we didn't invade Iraq to implement democracy. We're attempting that now only because we don't have much of an option (and we're not doing it very well, mind you, because we went in with little to no understanding of the domestic political situation in Iraq in the first place).

You're also not reading my posts, it would seem. We should elect people who opt for a foreign policy that works with other countries, not one that goes-it-alone so that we can go off and do our own thing, despite opposition from the very people it affects. Clinton's presidency did that, and Bush Sr. did that to some extent. Further back, FDR and Truman did that (albeit out of urgency).

Besides which, for most of the 20th century after WW2, US foreign policy was not about supporting democracy, but about resisting communism. Sometimes that meant installing dictatorships in place of democracies.

People in other countries tend to have longer memories than we do, particularly when they're the ones that are invaded. So, people in Iran still remember how we ousted the democratically-elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1954 to install the pro-Western Shah. 25 years later when Khomeini led the revolt against the Shah, Americans were thinking it was unprovoked, 'cause few people here actually remember historical details like that.

This carries over to other countries often, as well, like with Japan denying the extent of what it did when it occupied Korea and China. But I'm not going to get on that tangent since I get the feeling that you ignore posts after they reach a certain length.

It also doesn't help when a group of soldiers rape a 14 year old girl and kill her family, then try to cover it up. While that shouldn't be a reflection on the US military, it unfortunately is for so many people. People see that and think the US military as a whole is like that. Those idiot kids did more harm for the image of their country and the military as a whole than any one person could do. Especially to an area of the world that already doesn't seem to interested in our presence.

I know... What needs to happen is that senior officials have to start taking the heat for things like this. With both this, and Abu Ghraib, everyone involved was careful not to implicate anyone up-the-ranks from the prison guards or that group of soldiers. Even if their COs had no idea what they were doing, unless there's responsibility shared by the people in command, what increased incentive is there for COs to keep their men in line? Or how about to make sure the soldiers we have in Iraq are mentally fit for duty?

I know that if I were there, I wouldn't want to be working alongside anyone who was that mentally unstable, or that vindictive. We already have the best military technologically in the world; I really think that making sure that responsibility is shared by people in charge would go towards making sure it's the best military overall, as well. KF

[JWL]

And we didn't invade Iraq to implement democracy.

There were three reasons given for going into Iraq, based on Saddam Hussein's violations of the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War: Find and remove the WMDs, end any terrorist threat, and free the Iraqi people from the tyranny which about 80% of them lived under.

Those were the three reasons from the beginning, hence the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as opposed to "Operation Get Those WMDs". That's why we're still there, too. Otherwise we would have declared victory and left immediately after capturing Saddam Hussein.

[Kizyr]

And we didn't invade Iraq to implement democracy.

There were three reasons given for going into Iraq, based on Saddam Hussein's violations of the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War: Find and remove the WMDs, end any terrorist threat, and free the Iraqi people from the tyranny which about 80% of them lived under.

Those were the three reasons from the beginning, hence the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as opposed to "Operation Get Those WMDs". That's why we're still there, too. Otherwise we would have declared victory and left immediately after capturing Saddam Hussein.

I stand corrected. Two out of three ain't bad.

Though, my other points I still maintain. I still think the effort at invasion was very short-sighted (hence the initial quotes of "oh we won't be in there more than 6 months, tops" coming from Rumsfeld in 2002), which is why establishing security there has become such a long, drawn-out effort. And, while toppling Saddam Hussein is a good objective, I still don't like how the claims of WMD evidence and links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially false (especially the latter, as at least WMD claims were plausible, despite no evidence).

So, while I was against invasion, I'm ambivalent on the war in general, and thing the best strategy now is to figure out how best to remove ourselves from Iraq. (And most certainly not about things such as to whom to award construction and oil refinery/extraction contracts... but that's another issue altogether--political, not military.)

Similarly, though for different reasons, most Iraqis appear to be ambivalent. I can't find the BBC article I read the other day with this... but something like a majority of Iraqis (or Baghdad residents) don't like the presence of foreign troops, but still a majority think that the security situation will get worse if US troops were to leave right now. KF

[phyco126]

You know what though? I think we should just revert to our isolationist stage from the Great Depression, withdrawl our fighting forces back the the mainland, and postition our fleets around our territoriall intrests (I'm not talking about oil from another country either.) Then when something happens, tell the world to shove off. That would probably solve a lot of problems. Oh, and when someone does decide to attack us, we should say "Hey, we left you alone, you should have left us alone. No you can all burn in hell" and launch half our nuclear armarda against that one country. Yeah.

[Imperial Knight]

That's a false dichotomy. Isolationism was not the only alternative to starting this war.

[phyco126]

I wasn't saying it was an option then, I'm saying this is what I would do now.

[Imperial Knight]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post. It sounded to me like a sarcastic jab at opponents of the war.

[phyco126]

Nope. It's just how I feel currently.

[Sonic#]

You know what though? I think we should just revert to our isolationist stage from the Great Depression, withdrawl our fighting forces back the the mainland, and postition our fleets around our territoriall intrests (I'm not talking about oil from another country either.) Then when something happens, tell the world to shove off. That would probably solve a lot of problems. Oh, and when someone does decide to attack us, we should say "Hey, we left you alone, you should have left us alone. No you can all burn in hell" and launch half our nuclear armarda against that one country. Yeah.

I think that's the very thing that we cannot afford to do.

Not that interfering in a patronizing manner in international affairs is the right answer either, but the world just cannot be ignored. We are not the only people on this planet. And while I don't believe that we have any right to stick our noses where they don't belong, we should endeavor to build partnerships with other nations with the understanding that we can't (and shouldn't) always be the leader, that our ideas are not always supreme or right. We need dialogue. What retreating from world affairs would do might help us politically, but it would also mean the cessation and denial of actions that are potentially a large help - donations to international aid programs, for example, and environmental initiatives, which we need to be a part of if they are to succeed.

And we also need other economies. We can't revert to some mercantilistic form. We just can't.

Similarly, though for different reasons, most Iraqis appear to be ambivalent. I can't find the BBC article I read the other day with this... but something like a majority of Iraqis (or Baghdad residents) don't like the presence of foreign troops, but still a majority think that the security situation will get worse if US troops were to leave right now. KF

Oh, I read the same article, but I can't find it either. Most of what I turn up is from 2005. It's quite interesting though, because they also did the divisions by region.

[phyco126]

You know what though? I think we should just revert to our isolationist stage from the Great Depression, withdrawl our fighting forces back the the mainland, and postition our fleets around our territoriall intrests (I'm not talking about oil from another country either.) Then when something happens, tell the world to shove off. That would probably solve a lot of problems. Oh, and when someone does decide to attack us, we should say "Hey, we left you alone, you should have left us alone. No you can all burn in hell" and launch half our nuclear armarda against that one country. Yeah.

I think that's the very thing that we cannot afford to do.

Not that interfering in a patronizing manner in international affairs is the right answer either, but the world just cannot be ignored. We are not the only people on this planet. And while I don't believe that we have any right to stick our noses where they don't belong, we should endeavor to build partnerships with other nations with the understanding that we can't (and shouldn't) always be the leader, that our ideas are not always supreme or right. We need dialogue. What retreating from world affairs would do might help us politically, but it would also mean the cessation and denial of actions that are potentially a large help - donations to international aid programs, for example, and environmental initiatives, which we need to be a part of if they are to succeed.

And we also need other economies. We can't revert to some mercantilistic form. We just can't.

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.

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?