Reflections on the Iraq War

Iraq War y/n?


  • Total voters
    66
my thoughts:

1) At the time I supported the war, but that's because Bush and pals essentially lied to me as well as the American people.

2) The war was a huge mistake.

3) What people (Americans in particular) fail to point out is the loss of IRAQI lives. Everybody is criticizing the deaths of American troops, which is great, but I happen to be of the opinion that Iraqis are people to. Far more Iraqis died in this war than Americans; they have a right to be upset.
 
Japan and Germany lost millions of dead, countless wounded in a war so great. We called it a World War. A war which raged across half the globe, in which country drew its entire civilian force. It took a long time to rebuild. Ironic the US were greeted as "liberators" in both Japan and Germany.

I think it's important to note that we were greeted as liberators by the citizens of countries initially conquered by Germany and Japan, not by the German and Japanese citizens themselves.
 
How was Germany & Japan at all like Iraq?
 
The main similarity, to my mind, is that all three were regime changing situations: totally conquered nations with a managed transition to another system of government.

Japan and Germany were managed well - strangely by keeping the existing admininstrative structures somewhat intact (at least in Germany to some extent - I'm not so sure about Japan). While Iraq was a total failure (or rather, hardly a complete success) .

However, Japan and Germany were heavily occupied for decades after WW2, so it may just be a matter of time before Iraq goes the same way.

Additionally, Japan and Germany were relatively modern industrial economies, while Iraq was, and is, relatively undeveloped (?) (though oil-rich) and still, essentially, tribal(?).

But, this is only my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion.
 
I don't really understand the objections that are being brought up. OF COURSE BUSH LIED. Governments do not inform their citizens about their political and geostrategic objectives before they invade. Anyone who supported the war because they actually believed Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States is delusional.

That said, it really could have been handled much better, and if it had been we wouldn't have been stuck there for so long.
 
Mouthwash, then, what was the real reason we went to war with Iraq?

besides

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation?
 
Mouthwash, then, what was the real reason we went to war with Iraq?

besides

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation?

Ah, I see. You don't feel like asking yourself who has the burden of proof, so I now have the full burden to explain and prove all of the reasons that I believe we invaded Iraq for. While being attacked on all sides by angry liberal nutwings who can't cope with the thought that Bush might have actually been a competent president.

While that sounds like enormous fun, I have better things to do this month. I can recommend that you read "America's Secret War" as a basic introduction, though, and decide for yourself. :)
 
So apparently you've read that entire book that explains why we went to Iraq, yet you can't tell me? :(
 
So apparently you've read that entire book that explains why we went to Iraq, yet you can't tell me? :(

There wasn't one reason, there was a whole host of reasons. And I would have to argue them against this entire forum. I don't have the time or patience to do that.
 
And I would have to argue them against this entire forum. I don't have the time or patience to do that.
That so many people would find an inherently subjective set of assertions wrong should be a good indicator of their accuracy.
 
That so many people would find an inherently subjective set of assertions wrong should be a good indicator of their accuracy.

Ad populum brah.
 
Guerillas don't qualify as uprisings. Maybe I should have clarified it and called them popular uprisings.
Not really since it was quite obvious what you meant.
 
I don't really understand the objections that are being brought up. OF COURSE BUSH LIED. Governments do not inform their citizens about their political and geostrategic objectives before they invade. Anyone who supported the war because they actually believed Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States is delusional.

Because those "geostrategic objectives" tend to not align with the will or needs of the people. I do agree that anyone (in a position of policy making, journalists, intl. specialists, and related fields) who thought Iraq was a clear and present danger is not worthy of taking serious ever again.

There wasn't one reason, there was a whole host of reasons. And I would have to argue them against this entire forum. I don't have the time or patience to do that.

Oh my god, boo hoo. Start an Ask a Victimized Conservative thread then if you don't want argument.
 
Because those "geostrategic objectives" tend to not align with the will or needs of the people. I do agree that anyone (in a position of policy making, journalists, intl. specialists, and related fields) who thought Iraq was a clear and present danger is not worthy of taking serious ever again.

It did, in fact, align with the needs of the people. Just not with the will.


Oh my god, boo hoo. Start an Ask a Victimized Conservative thread then if you don't want argument.

All I did was point out the fallacy of using the fact that Bush lied in order to paint the war as evil. I would expect any President to lie when necessary.
 
Well, it's preferable to not ruin your reputation at all, which despite all efforts of the Bush administration to demonstrate otherwise, is actually possible.

Or ignore what others think of you, in which case you can freely ignore the UN of course. But don't scoff at the international community and then expect it to cheer you on while you go waging wars.
Our reputation wouldn't have been ruined. We had already gone to war with Iraq, and few people would cry for the poor genocidal dictator had he been removed. :lol:
 
Guerillas don't qualify as uprisings.

Well, they certainly qualify as violent attacks by holdout nationalists in the aftermath of the war. Which is indeed close enough to what you were asking for to apply. If you and Form want to bicker over semantics go right ahead.
 
Well, they certainly qualify as violent attacks by holdout nationalists in the aftermath of the war. Which is indeed close enough to what you were asking for to apply. If you and Form want to bicker over semantics go right ahead.

The great majority of the violence post-Saddam was not perpetrated by holdout nationalists, I think. Also the violence was definitely on an entirely different level post-Saddam than in post-WW2 Germany/Japan, but that should go without saying.

It is an odd comparison, and it only is brought up as a convenient skin deep analogy. It gave the whole boondoggle a gleam of historical credibility at the time. What lessons are we supposed to have learned from Germany & Japan that could be applied to Iraq? The only one the American people were ever supposed to pick up on I guess was that since we did such a bangup job in those two places, Iraq would be a piece of cake because Bush & Co have it under control.
 
Back
Top Bottom