Iraq - one and a bit years on.

Personally, I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. As far as I could make out, the war would only increase the risk of terrorism and had nothing to do with 9-11. If the coalition were so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi population, then why couldn't they merely lift the sanctions which were descibed as "genocidal" by the then deputy leader of the UN and its chief humanitarian coordinator, Dennis Halliday.Actually, I also thought that Saddam would launch some sort of chemical counter-offensive against Israel to raise the stakes - boy did I overestimate the strength of the Iraqi forces. The whole thing smacked of indiscriminate and irrational revenge against people who looked a bit like the people who were responsible for 9-11.The only justification I could find for the invasion was that, evil though the sanctions regime may have been, the only way for them to be realistically lifted was for Saddam to be gone (kinda like somebody saying "I'll stop poking you in the eye if you let me kick you really hard once in the nads"). Morally bankrupt, yes - but for a "greater good", perhaps.But that's just me.Looking at the news these days, with the unfolding scandal of prison abuse and lord (well, the Pentagon) knows what else to come and the subsequent revenge atrocity on Nick Berg, I wonder if any of the posters here have changed their view on whether the war on Iraq was justified?I seem to recall that, of the posters who expressed an opinion, the general mood on EvC was against the war, with a few supporting it only on condition that WMDs definitely be found. We now have Saddam captured and who knows what sort of torture and abuse (not photographed) he's already gone through without admitting the location of the WMDs, so is it fair to now assume that the WMDs never existed? Is it now fair to say that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified?For anyone who supported the war wholeheartedly, I'd be interested to find out if the abuse pictures have changed that opinion and if so, why? (or why not?)As for what happens now, I don't have any suggestions. I think a complete coalition pullout may cause more problems than the troops staying. It would be a good idea for the coalition stop abusing its prisoners (a full and transparent inquiry is the basic minimum) and taking out retribution on entire cities full of civilians though, as in Fallujah.PE

---

404 Not Found

Since the Bush adminstration redacted our justification for war to be the abuse and torture of Iraqis by Saddam, does that mean that, now that we're doing the same thing, Canada can invade us?

If you lived where I do you would know that that was an annual event.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is there any honorable way out of a dishonorable situation? Old chinese saying: it's never too late to stop taking the wrong road.I have felt that Iraq was wrong from the start, now it just goes from bad to worse. The core values of this country of freedom, justice and equality have been trampled.This will blemish the US image abroad for decades. If we send troops in to "help" other nations, would they note wonder what's in store?

The Canadians can try all they want. All we have to do is nuke 2 of their cities and they have 2 thousand people left total.

---

The Laminator

​

Whether or not the US led invasions of Afganistan and Iraq were justified, they happened.But the issue of terrorism in general and the change from the historic Nation State Conflicts to some new paradigm is reality.The convention of War as a method of resolving Nation State disputes has worked well (that is not to say that it was just or that the outcomes were correct but rather simply that it was effective) but we are reaching the end of such conflicts. We are beginning though, a new form of conflict and the rules that worked well during Nation State Conflicts will no longer apply.We are still very early in defining what this new paradigm might be, and way far to early to know what the rules might be. We WILL though learn, and over the next century or so some form of formalized kata and accord will emerge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, right. Weapons of mass destruction - that'll put us on the moral high ground.

I think one of my high school teachers who was one of the first over there as a general planning the strategy to be used summed up what goes on over there best:
"When I'm standing in the desert, holding up the skull of a thirteen year old girl with a bullet hole between the eyes, I can't help but think to myself, maybe we're doing some good in the world."That image struck me as quite powerful, and actually changed my opinion, I was against going over there, but I changed my mind when he made me think about the horrors being carried out there every day. Sure, we can't step in and end thousands of years of cultural battles, but we sure as hell can't stand by and watch now that they're no longer fighting their battles with sticks and stones, they are involving the innocent, and as such, it is our job to protect those who don't want to be involved. It's a very delicate situation, one that will never come fully to light for years to come. You can call me a warmonger, or whatever, just remember that as a country seperated from our enemies by large bodies of water, we are pretty untouched by the realities of war that never cease to end. Just because we're not directly attacked in no way means we should leave them to kill eachother with bigger and bigger weapons until more bystandards are braught into the crossfire, more people who really don't want to be there. Just my two cent rant for the day. But in all honesty, I'm way less opinionated about the whole thing than I sound...so....meh-Brad

quote:

---

That image struck me as quite powerful, and actually changed my opinion, I was against going over there, but I changed my mind when he made me think about the horrors being carried out there every day. Sure, we can't step in and end thousands of years of cultural battles, but we sure as hell can't stand by and watch now that they're no longer fighting their battles with sticks and stones, they are involving the innocent, and as such, it is our job to protect those who don't want to be involved. It's a very delicate situation, one that will never come fully to light for years to come. You can call me a warmonger, or whatever, just remember that as a country seperated from our enemies by large bodies of water, we are pretty untouched by the realities of war that never cease to end. Just because we're not directly attacked in no way means we should leave them to kill eachother with bigger and bigger weapons until more bystandards are braught into the crossfire, more people who really don't want to be there. Just my two cent rant for the day. But in all honesty, I'm way less opinionated about the whole thing than I sound...so....meh

---

I do agree, but it was not humanitarian reasons which sold the public and Congress as the primary reason for going to war. But even if it was a secondary reason (conspicuously taking the place of the primary reason as no WMD were found), the image to the Arab world and to the Iraqi people from recent events of prison tortures hurts that humanitarian "motive" for our invasion as well.Besides, if we are truly out on a humanitarian conquest, where were we when some 3 million people were slaughtered (and still are being slaughtered) in the Congo?Were are we with the current state of up to 1 million people being displaced from their homes, and the beginnings of an ethnic cleansing process are taking place in Sudan?Why haven't we invaded Uzbekistan? Have you heard about their ruthless brutal dictator?And if we are real humanitarians, why are we doing so very little to curb the AIDS epidemic in Africa?Just a few humanitarian things to think about.

As per usual Abby's wise words ring true to me.
I personally can not see any "good" in this whole IRAQ situation. If there is a honorable road to take I hope someone in power gets the courage to steer this country in that direction.

We have cleverly built our cities near yours. You're going to have some small objection to that plan.'Sides there is no way you need to apply that much force. You don't know much about our armed services do you?{However, joking aside, I remember a florida senator talking, in 1973, about "north american" oil reserves. I took that as a hint that what's yours is yours and what's ours is yours if you want it. The only country I worry about really being a threat to us is the USA. We are pushing the envelope you know. No legal restrictions on abortion, talked about decrimalizing marijuana and expect fair trade to mean just that --- pretty subversive stuff.)

At such time as we've actually reduced the horrors there, instead of just replacing them, I'd be inclined to share that sentiment.Folks are starving because of our actions, they're dying of thirst and no electricity. I don't know if you can set a metric of suffering but trading a few folks in mass graves for reducing a country to such a chaotic state it can't feed its people doesn't seem like a trade up to me. You know?It's a complicated situation, which is why it burns me up when Bush and Co. try to play it in such morally simple terms. We're right, and whatever they do is wrong, even if we do it too.I don't think it's unpatriotic or bad for morale to examine this situation with the scrutiny it deserves.Another thing that burns me up about this abuse business is the Bush line on it - the fact that America is better because we face problems like this head-on. Of course, never mind that Bush wouldn't have faced it at all if it hadn't shown up on 60 Minutes.What a bunch of assholes.

My opinion on the war has changed. I thought the Iraqis were ready for democracy.I don't think so now. I'm not sure any society in the Middle East except Israel is capable of comprehending representative democracy or human rights. They deserved Saddam.Let them rot.

Does that mean that there are countries outside the Middle east that might appreciate the US bombing them into democracy?Did you have your eye on any in particular?PE

---

404 Not Found

quote:

---

Does that mean that there are countries outside the Middle east that might appreciate the US bombing them into democracy?

---

Like we did to Japan?No. I've decided that trying to bring human rights to Third World hellholes isn't worth a single American life, or dollar, for that matter. Let them terrorize and slaughter each other rather than us.The first group I want to disconnect from American humanitarian aid are the Palestinians. They can rot too. Then I want to sink the billions we spend on HIV in Africa into a prize for the company that invents a safe and effective HIV vaccine...that will, of course, be used first in America. And you can forget about hosting the UN in New York or continuing to pay 20% of their budget until they clean house.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-12-2004 07:50 PM