Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War in Iraq
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 56 (117381)
06-22-2004 12:38 AM


Lately (this summer), I've been consuming my time watching debates on CSPAN, playing guitar, basketball, track, and thinking.
The war in Iraq has been a puzzle to me. Being influenced by a seemingly republican brother and my friend and his Dad (Democrats). So far I have witnessed debates between Republicans and Democrats (on CSPAN.)
For instance:
The war in Iraq so far seems to be argued a bad action and a good action. So far the R's I have seen support the war, and the D's do not. A common argument that many debates seem to always "boil down" to are the unrelenting question "Why did we go to war", a question for some that seems to be changing. WMDs, Liberation, Ties to Al Quaeda, and Oil (obviously not on the president's agenda) are some answers that seem to be floating around.
So far the WMDs have been knocked out of the brains of Democrats but Republicans retain hope, as well as past history of the attempts of Iraq to get Weapons. They are at a kind of a stale mate here I have observed, democrats state openly that weapons have and never will be found and republicans state that traces have been found and WMDs will be found. As for the WMDs the reason for war is an opinion, backed with fact on both sides.
The Liberation of the Iraqi's is viewed by democrats as an excuse, saying that initially this was not a main reason for war. Republicans beg to differ, as both sides analyze Bush's initial agenda.
Now Iraq's Ties to Al Quaeda were obviously found, but democrats argue that Al Quada had more of a connection with other Counries such as Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, etc... So why target Iraq, they say, In fact Bin Laden actually wanted to do away with Hussein himself, saying that he was against Islamic traditions and beliefs. Republicans focus on the ties with Iraq and highlight in past fundings, and helpings of Al Quaeda done by Iraq.
Oil is a reason for war developed by the democrats, citing how within the week of Bush's inauguration a meeting was held about Iraq.
War waged under false pretenses?
Or was this war genuine?

The earth is flat.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 2:17 AM joshua221 has replied
 Message 15 by zephyr, posted 06-22-2004 12:57 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 06-24-2004 1:11 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 56 (117408)
06-22-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
06-22-2004 12:38 AM


The war in Iraq so far seems to be argued a bad action and a good action.
How about this: It was a good action done badly.
We had the capability to do good by the Iraqis, and the man leading them - if he can even be referred to as a leader - was a danger to everybody, especially to the Iraqis.
He wasn't an imminent threat to anybody, but he was a constant threat to his own people. The problem is that we haven't made things better over there. At least when Saddam was in power, the electricity and water ran for more than 9 hours each day.
We had a chance to export the best parts of our country - freedom, public government, peace - and instead we've given them the worst - corporate arrogance, political disenfranchisement, violent lawlessness on both sides.
The question isn't as simple as "war or no war." That ship has sailed. I don't know how to work the moral calculus that would tell us if doing nothing would have been better than doing what we did.
But I can look and see how badly this administration has cocked this up, and how badly it's cost us internationally. People in other democracies are winning elections by demonizing us. That can't be good.
I was in favor of the war, simply because liberating the Iraqis was the right thing to do. But we haven't done that. I don't understand how any Republican can look back on this with a clear conscience. You've got to be crazy or outright heartless to feel good about this war, or to vote for Bush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 12:38 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 4:27 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 11:26 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 11 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 11:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 56 (117417)
06-22-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
06-22-2004 2:17 AM


While Bush was swearing into office, I was also swearing. I'm going to have a major heart attack if he wins this election.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 2:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 4:36 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 7 by paisano, posted 06-22-2004 10:34 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 56 (117419)
06-22-2004 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
06-22-2004 4:27 AM


I'm going to have a major heart attack if he wins this election.
Dude, don't sweat it. He's on his way out.
Standing up for Rumsfeld and Ashcroft is going to hang him, as these guys more and more are starting to look like the architects of outrageous prison abuse.
He's tied or trailing in almost all the polls, and the undecideds have never broken for the imcumbent come election day. And why would they? If almost four years of Bush isn't enough to win you on his side for another four, what could possibly happen in the next six months or so that would?
No incumbent president has ever been elected with numbers this low.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 4:27 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 4:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 56 (117439)
06-22-2004 6:58 AM


The war was an illegal and criminal adventure fow which, if there were any justice, Bush would stand trial for the homicides of all victims of the war and crimes against humanity.
Furthermore it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the West's alleged "democracy" and the gulliblity of the US electorate (with nearly half still convinced there was a link bewtween AQ and Saddam).
Lastly, the war has made it plain that only "rogue state" which poses a threat to the world is the USA.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 7:09 AM contracycle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 56 (117443)
06-22-2004 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by contracycle
06-22-2004 6:58 AM


The war was an illegal and criminal adventure
Do you think there was a way we could have done it better than we did? Or do you think the venture was fundamentally flawed?
Do you think it's never appropriate to invade a country to depose a dangerous despot?
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just wondering exactly what your position is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 6:58 AM contracycle has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 7 of 56 (117471)
06-22-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
06-22-2004 4:27 AM


I voted for Bush, but I am hardly an unquestioning acolyte.
Nevertheless, had Al Gore prevailed, Joe Lieberman would be President now. Gore's current personality decompensation is bad enough. After 9/11, had he been President, he would have had a florid nervous breakdown and had to resign as unable to perform the duties of the office.
I think Kerry's personality is far more stable, but I lack confidence in his ability to be effective. He seems to be reprising Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign.
I reamin firmly convinced that the elements of Islamic terror (by no means all of Islam) must be confronted and defeated, and cannot be appeased or wished away. Whether Iraq was a sound theater of this conflict is open to debate, and I suspect history will have to be the judge. No war is trouble-free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 4:27 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 56 (117472)
06-22-2004 10:36 AM


quote:
Do you think there was a way we could have done it better than we did? Or do you think the venture was fundamentally flawed?
No, It was fundamentally flawed. Or at least, the stated ambitions were antithetical to the means employed, and this should have been obvious. In fact, it was obvious.
quote:
Do you think it's never appropriate to invade a country to depose a dangerous despot?
Yeesh... lets say that by now, after a thousand years of European wars, if we haven't learned that this sort of hubris is counterproductive, we have learned nothing. But in fact, we DID learn it, and enshrined it in law as the right to self determination of states. Because, it is too easy for any aggressor state to use this argument as an excuse. Remember, Hitler only invaded Czechoslavakia because they were oppressing ethnic Germans... or so he said.
quote:
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just wondering exactly what your position is.
It was strategically stupid, because of clear ulterior motives
It was politically dishonest, as the discredited pretexts show
It was elitist and imperialist, as it arrogantly sought to impose a way of life
It was clearly illegal as the UN has no rights over the internal policy of member states
"War is a bringer of shame
But never has the burden lain so heavily upon the victim"

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 11:31 AM contracycle has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 56 (117490)
06-22-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
06-22-2004 2:17 AM


So it seems that you are swaying between, Yes it was good for the Iraqis, but in the process the savage elements of war: death, hatred, Pows, etc, were way too much of a cost.
I know that liberation was great, but war is savage.
This message has been edited by prophex, 06-22-2004 10:33 AM

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 2:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 56 (117492)
06-22-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by contracycle
06-22-2004 10:36 AM


quote:
It was strategically stupid, because of clear ulterior motives
It was politically dishonest, as the discredited pretexts show
It was elitist and imperialist, as it arrogantly sought to impose a way of life
It was clearly illegal as the UN has no rights over the internal policy of member states
Clear ulterior motives being what? Oil?
Politically dishonest, do you think Bush lied to us as a nation? About his motives of war?
A better way of life, where people can live freely without such a man as Saddam?

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 10:36 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 12:34 PM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 56 (117495)
06-22-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
06-22-2004 2:17 AM


huh?
quote:
I was in favor of the war, simply because liberating the Iraqis was the right thing to do. But we haven't done that. I don't understand how any Republican can look back on this with a clear conscience. You've got to be crazy or outright heartless to feel good about this war, or to vote for Bush.
Why limit the guilt to republicans? Democrats as well as republicans wanted this war...

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 2:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
stein
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 56 (117497)
06-22-2004 11:39 AM


pliz lets be realistic when it comes to the iraq war. benefits moved far beyond the necessity of repecting territorial sovereignity

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 56 (117514)
06-22-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by joshua221
06-22-2004 11:31 AM


quote:
I know that liberation was great, but war is savage.
What liberation is there in Occupied Iraq?
quote:
Clear ulterior motives being what? Oil?
Yes
quote:
Politically dishonest, do you think Bush lied to us as a nation? About his motives of war
I do, but thats undemonstrable; what is demonstrable is that they selected the evidence for the answer they wanted, rather than merely examining the evidence.
quote:
A better way of life, where people can live freely without such a man as Saddam?
How about a better way of life where people can live freely without such a man as George Bush? Am I now entitled to bomb you and your family becuase I think this?
quote:
Why limit the guilt to republicans? Democrats as well as republicans wanted this war...
Yes. The democrats have exactly as much blood on their hands as the Republicans.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-22-2004 11:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 11:31 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by bob_gray, posted 06-22-2004 1:19 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 17 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 1:23 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 19 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 1:27 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 56 (117517)
06-22-2004 12:52 PM


What scares me is the new Bush Doctrine, the doctrine of attacking countries that support, harbor, or facilitate terrorism. I was watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central last night and John Stewart had a good point. To paraphrase "I am thinking of a country that supports terrorism, has WMD's, is torturing its own people, and is run by a despot. Can you tell me which country I am talking about?" The answer is no, not specifically. You could insert Sudan, Syria, Iran, N. Korea. If you took out the WMD's, you could list off several African countries.
The scariest part is that the Bush Doctrine could be used to support the invasion of America. Who has the largest stock piles of WMD's? The US. In which country did the 9/11 terrorists learn to fly commercial jets? US. Which country openly allows anti-American, fundamental Islamic hate speech meant to incite violence? The US, although I don't think this is a bad thing, I do support free speech.
What the US should have done is taken Iraq up on their offer to bring inspectors back in. This offer was made weeks prior to the invasion, and was an unconditional offer. If we were worried about WMD's, this was the perfect chance to neutralize this threat. During the search for WMD's, we could have also searched out the torture chambers and put international pressure on Saddam to step down. How fast do you think UN peacekeepers would have flooded in at the slightest hint of a popular uprising against the Baath part? Pretty damn quick. At the time, war was not necessary. Bush claims that it was the last option he had, but this is just plain wrong. I am not a dove, but I am not a bully either. Unfortunately, Bush has shown himself to be the bully that we feared after his inauguration in 2001.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 1:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 22 by paisano, posted 06-22-2004 2:22 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 15 of 56 (117518)
06-22-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
06-22-2004 12:38 AM


quote:
Now Iraq's Ties to Al Quaeda were obviously found, but democrats argue that Al Quada had more of a connection with other Counries such as Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, etc... So why target Iraq, they say, In fact Bin Laden actually wanted to do away with Hussein himself, saying that he was against Islamic traditions and beliefs. Republicans focus on the ties with Iraq and highlight in past fundings, and helpings of Al Quaeda done by Iraq.
whatwhatwhaaaaaat?
I've seen no concrete evidence of any actual assistance... and if you have any functioning sight or sound organs you have got to be aware that the 9-11 commission has categorically denied ANY substantial connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Cheney's continuous handwaving dismissal of this conclusion is curiously unsupported by any offering of evidence.
My feeling, long before we went to war, was that the administration wanted to take Saddam out for its own reasons, and was willing to use whatever rhetoric and distortion necessary to connect him to 9-11 or a broader fear of terrorism that it has definitely encouraged and fostered among Americans. This feeling has only been further confirmed by the turn of recent events.
Incidentally, I'll be there in a few days myself... and I hope with all my being that my presence will appear in retrospect as part of a sensible and constructive exit strategy that at least partially vindicates what began as a totally illegitimate political move. It is a grave situation that we created and must hereafter make the best of, and that includes finding our way out as soon as possible without leaving the country a shambles.
If this thread lives long enough, I hope to have some more interesting (and substantial) inputs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 12:38 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 1:33 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024