Reflections on the Iraq War

[Ajidica]

You missed the point however Ace, it's not my position that Iraq was with it because it saved Iraqi lives, I am disproving the position that it wasn't because it cost innocent Iraqi lives as that is demonstrably false. If your interest it opposing the war is protecting innocent life even given hindsight and known data, then you are either a hypocrite or woefully misinformed. If you are Forma probably both.

Wouldn't it have been better to save lives by keeping Iraq open to international aid rather than imposing crippling sanctions preventing the import of some vaccines and water purification equipment?
I seem to remember that UN reports along with the State Department estimated that around 600,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions. I don't remember the other numbers and I really don't want to get into a round of Genocide Olympics. However, posing the Iraq War as some sort of humanitarian intervention designed to save Iraqi lives is ignoring our rather contemptible rebuilding efforts in the first few years (allowing Iraq to slide into civil war that it still hasn't really gotten out of) and the abhorrent sanctions that destroyed the living standards(remember that even after 8 years of war during the Iran-Iraq War Iraq still had the 1st or 2nd highest living standards in the Arab world) in Iraq and plunged it into a decade of international isolation and giving it an effective 3rd world quality of life.
If humanitarian assistance was our goal we could have done a lot more in the prior decade, and going back further-not supported a brutal dictator because Saddam was the closest thing in the region to 'our man' after the Shah fled Iran.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's hard to justify the defense of a murderous tyrant like Hussein, but I cannot bring myself to praise imperialism. But I do not weep for Saddam's short drop and sudden stop, either.

 

[Old Hippy]

All you need to know about Cutlass can be gleaned from the fact that he disgrees with the above quotes.

it is worth noting that the quotes were only made 'cause of the widely held view that it was not a foregone conclusion...

 

[Ajidica]

It's hard to justify the defense of a murderous tyrant like Hussein, but I cannot bring myself to praise imperialism. But I do not weep for Saddam's short drop and sudden stop, either.

Did we need to execute Saddam though? Send him through a trial and stick him in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Berzerker]

So is anyone here denying that Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis beyond what the war killed would be dead under Saddam?

Sure, I'd even say fewer would have died under Saddam and far fewer without the sanctions. Saddam's acts of mass murder were usually linked to some war or rebellion, like the one Bush encouraged after Kuwait only to turn his back on the rebels.

 

[MobBoss]

It's hard to justify the defense of a murderous tyrant like Hussein, but I cannot bring myself to praise imperialism.

I'm sorry...did we make Iraq a colony or something while I was asleep?

 

[phoenix_sprite]

I don't think that the end result really justified the decision to invade foreign soil.

 

[Borachio]

I'm sorry...did we make Iraq a colony or something while I was asleep?

No. Technically not, perhaps. But it's definitely firmly within the US zone of influence, for the time being. Which was probably the intent all along.

Under Saddam - a notable maverick - it wasn't under American control. In my opinion.

 

[classical_hero]

I have empathy for other people, but having empathy and wanting to send my friends to die, and paralyzing my country's budget for decades are two very different things.

Freedom is costly. To get the freedoms we have herein the west did cost lives of people and it is the same everywhere.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Saddem was a tyrant but the "security" provided by Bush had let to a power vacum, especilly as NATO was currently in war and still is in Afganistan. Iraq was a logistics and PR ill for the United States of America, especilly after the veto in the UN by France.

Interventionism is a intresting considerations: fail to intervene in cases like Rwanda is costly but so is over intervening. Be careful of the twin dangers of apathy towards cruelity and ideological crusades.

I'm sorry...did we make Iraq a colony or something while I was asleep?

Making a colony does not always be the aim of neo-imperialism, a concept in links of the Westernisation/Americanisation set out. From mear concepts of developed to developing ("we are developed and you can be developed if you follow our path, always following!") to cases of attacking one dictator and befreinding another. There is questions whether nations are still colonised, especilly in terms of commerce and power play. You do not have to make a state a colony to go imperial: the American as a empire found other ways.

Of course these are considerations, ideas to take on a issue with many ways to view it. The main thing was Bush's and Blair's failure in intelligence gathering with a possible surge from the war in Afganistain.

Power is a central theme in politics.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Did we need to execute Saddam though? Send him through a trial and stick him in prison for the rest of his life.

We didn't execute him, we turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial and sentencing.

I'm sorry...did we make Iraq a colony or something while I was asleep?

We made Iraq a friendly nation in the region with a government that will not stand up to us, and will trade with us as we see fit.

This was Bush's stated aim from the beginning. "Democracies are always allies" and all that. And yes indeed, you were and still are asleep.

 

[Cutlass]

All you need to know about Cutlass can be gleaned from the fact that he disgrees with the above quotes.

You mean that I'm a patriotic American?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Wouldn't it have been better to save lives by keeping Iraq open to international aid rather than imposing crippling sanctions preventing the import of some vaccines and water purification equipment?
I seem to remember that UN reports along with the State Department estimated that around 600,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions. I don't remember the other numbers and I really don't want to get into a round of Genocide Olympics. However, posing the Iraq War as some sort of humanitarian intervention designed to save Iraqi lives is ignoring our rather contemptible rebuilding efforts in the first few years (allowing Iraq to slide into civil war that it still hasn't really gotten out of) and the abhorrent sanctions that destroyed the living standards(remember that even after 8 years of war during the Iran-Iraq War Iraq still had the 1st or 2nd highest living standards in the Arab world) in Iraq and plunged it into a decade of international isolation and giving it an effective 3rd world quality of life.
If humanitarian assistance was our goal we could have done a lot more in the prior decade, and going back further-not supported a brutal dictator because Saddam was the closest thing in the region to 'our man' after the Shah fled Iran.

Indeed. The entire notion of trying to portray this as any sort of humanitarian effort by using harsh economic sanctions, which did indeed lead to hundreds of thousands suffering and even dying, followed by the invasion which deliberately destroyed much of their infrastructure with no attempts for years to rebuild it, and the subsequent occupation with far fewer resources than were obviously necessary to maintain even a basic semblance of peace and order, is far beyond completely absurd. It just shows to what level some are willing to go to try to rationalize any atrocities while completely ignoring the facts.

You mean that I'm a patriotic American?

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly what he means.

 

[Tarquelne]

Wars are good for you:


A lot of people are tip-toeing around what I call the "Revolutionary Fallacy". To put it bluntly, it's "If we just kill the bad people everything will be better."*

There does sometimes come a point where that's true... but many seem to think it's, like, all the time.

The freedom, security, and prosperity we enjoy didn't just cost blood. There were also laws to be established, long-term public debate leading to shifting social expectations, the creation of an infrastructure both conceptual and material... Stuff *not* involving lots of killing. Sweat and tears, yeah. But not blood.

Quite a few people seem to be fine with the shedding of blood to try and quickly solve large long-term problems. It's a short-cut. But only as long as it isn't their own blood. There are still far too many willing to shed their own blood, but at least the problem they pose is inherently self-limiting.


Iraq:

The arguments for doing *something* about Iraq were strong.

The arguments for that "something" being a war were and still-are terrible... were they weren't weren't lies. The lies, judged on their effectiveness, were awesome. (The only open question, in my mind, is whether the people involved were lying to the public or lying to themselves.)

Okay, okay: I shouldn't just say the arguments for a war were "terrible" and leave it at that. It was a war of choice, and like almost every choice there are pros and cons. There's advantages to choosing war.

If you don't much care about how many people get killed, a war is OK. If you don't much care about how much money you spend (as opposed to "invest"), a war is OK.
A war will very likely get the job done. Well, the immediate one.

If you don't much care about sacrificing long-term solutions for short-term gains, a war is OK. If you're angry or insecure a war is likely the only thing that can give you what you feel you need. If you put feeling certain ahead of lives - perhaps your own - or future prosperity - perhaps your own - a war is OK. If what you want is action, and fast! ... a war is the only thing that can give it to you.
So a war can be an expression of personal preference or fill an emotional need. Who could argue with that?


*C'mon! If nothing else it's usually too difficult to kill *enough* bad people all at once.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is it really all that surprising that warmongers typically have such a simplistic and almost childlike understanding of the world around them? That war isn't the very last recourse to be used when all else has failed, but the action they feel is the only proper solution even from the outset in so many cases?

 

[ace99]

Let me shamelessly rip off The Patriot and say that it's not my business or the United State's business what a tyrant three thousand miles away does. I'd rather worry about the three thousand tyrants one mile away.

If the people there want to topple their governments they will try with or without our help.

Also the notion that Iraq is an ally means that you haven't been following the news. If Iraq was an ally, vassal or whatever we wouldn't need to send John Kerry over to beg the Iraqi government stop helping Iran resupply the Syrian regime. Iranian overflights over Iraq are regular, and Iraqi forces coordinated with the Syrian military in assisting them in retaking Syrian border posts by shelling the rebels. Iraq has grown ever closer to Tehran since the toppling of Saddam and continues to be close to Tehran. Great success?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is it really all that surprising that the Shi'a minority tend to stick together to avoid being persecuted by the Sunni majority?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Iraq war was and is difficult for me to support because of one vital issue. The why.

I can't be convinced that those who were privy to all information (this is barring info that might still be unknown to the public) thought that Iraq or Saddam posed a significant threat to the US.

I can also not be convinced that the decision was made to save the poor Iraqis from an evil tyrant. As much as that reason would seem very noble to me, the actions taken in the aftermath made it clear that the wellbeing of the Iraqis wasn't a top priority.

What are left are really unsavoury reasons which I normally classify in the "loose change'" category because they are usually easily debunked. Not in this case however. If I wonder who benefited most from this war in the vicinity of the decision makers, I come to a conclusion which I hesitate to utter. I did so before and people told me: "If you believe that, I don't know what to say to you". And I believed them. I'm not a comfortable conspiracy theorist myself, and I can see why people would raise an eyebrow.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Let me shamelessly rip off The Patriot and say that it's not my business or the United State's business what a tyrant three thousand miles away does. I'd rather worry about the three thousand tyrants one mile away.

If the people there want to topple their governments they will try with or without our help.

Also the notion that Iraq is an ally means that you haven't been following the news. If Iraq was an ally, vassal or whatever we wouldn't need to send John Kerry over to beg the Iraqi government stop helping Iran resupply the Syrian regime. Iranian overflights over Iraq are regular, and Iraqi forces coordinated with the Syrian military in assisting them in retaking Syrian border posts by shelling the rebels. Iraq has grown ever closer to Tehran since the toppling of Saddam and continues to be close to Tehran. Great success?

That just means we did a bad job of it, and even failed at our stated goal of creating an American friend and ally.

 

[MobBoss]

No. Technically not, perhaps. But it's definitely firmly within the US zone of influence, for the time being. Which was probably the intent all along.

Under Saddam - a notable maverick - it wasn't under American control. In my opinion.

But is that imperialism?

And if so, was it imperialism of the other nations that went to war with us as well?

This was Bush's stated aim from the beginning. "Democracies are always allies" and all that. And yes indeed, you were and still are asleep.

Yeah, I guess young and edgy commies are the only ones awake these days. Ah well.

This was Bush's stated aim from the beginning.

It had been an aim of the US Government since Clinton.