If the War in Iraq Was About Freeing the Iraqis, Would You Support It?

[Kelzie]

So I was talking to a vet from the beginning of the Iraq War, and he painted a different picture than what the media does. According to him, he has never met an Iraqi that wasn't glad the US was there. He was very proud of the fact that we were there, despite the hardships (he lost two of his men in Fallujah), and he honestly believes we are doing good.

Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind. But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war. Howbout everyone else? If the US had honestly gone into Iraq to free the Iraqi people, would you be okay with it? Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

So I was talking to a vet from the beginning of the Iraq War, and he painted a different picture than what the media does. According to him, he has never met an Iraqi that wasn't glad the US was there. He was very proud of the fact that we were there, despite the hardships (he lost two of his men in Fallujah), and he honestly believes we are doing good.

Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind. But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war. Howbout everyone else? If the US had honestly gone into Iraq to free the Iraqi people, would you be okay with it? Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

No. I don't have a problem with supporting an Iraqi opposition to Saddam with money, guns, and amunition, and possibly SOME military help, but going in and fighting their war against Saddam for them is the wrong thing to do. Without shedding sweat, blood, and tears of their own in a fight against Saddam they can never fully appriciate the sacrifices made for their government. If they fight for it themselves they would be less inclined to sit back and do nothing if radical islamic fundamentalists take over their government. The Iraqi's are far too passive in the grand scheme of things which makes their government weak and open to a coup de ta. As long as their dependant on a foreign military power to do their fighting for them they will never be able to have complete independance and soveirnty.

 

[nkgupta80]

^ nice way of putting it.

 

[Navy Pride]

I believe Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions.....That is good enough reason to take him out.....................

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I believe Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions.....That is good enough reason to take him out.....................

There is no nation on the face of the earth that abides by all of the resolutions except maybe Vatican City but they don't have a vote in the UN only a seat. Besides, that wasn't the question.

 

[Mancunian]

I agree with Napolean's Nightingale on this one. For there to be stability in the long term, Iraqi's have to fight their own battles but they would probably need assistance. Saddam's henchman would have squashed any token resistence so any oppostion to his power would need to be funded and armed. However, taking control of the situation like we have done means those who want to fight their own battles resent us and those who are passive or supportive will remain reliant on us.

 

[Kelzie]

What if the population can't fight their own battles? What about the women in the middle east? Where would the get the kind of ammunition they would need to overthrow the government, even if they wanted to?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

What if the population can't fight their own battles? What about the women in the middle east? Where would the get the kind of ammunition they would need to overthrow the government, even if they wanted to?

The Iraqi people chose to accept defeat. The revolutionaries refused to accept defeat against one of the greatest military powers in the world and with the aid of France and they won. France didn't fight every single battle of the revolution for us. They only supplied the means for us to win, they didn't win it for us they won it with us. In France only the people of France were responsible for overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a new government. If the Iraqi people wanted it bad enough they would have fought for it themselves with some aid instead of depending on a foreign power to do all of it for them which is why they will NEVER be independant or soveirgn because we do all of the fighting for them instead of with them.

 

[Kelzie]

The Iraqi people chose to accept defeat. The revolutionaries refused to accept defeat against one of the greatest military powers in the world and with the aid of France and they won. France didn't fight every single battle of the revolution for us. They only supplied the means for us to win, they didn't win it for us. In France only the people of France were responsible for overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a new government. If the Iraqi people wanted it bad enough they would have fought for it themselves with some aid instead of depending on a foreign power to do it all of it for them which is why they will NEVER be independant or soveirgn because we spoil them.

*sigh* I know. It just sucks what these people (especially the women...sorry I'm biased) have to live with. What's wrong with fixing it for them?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

*sigh* I know. It just sucks what these people (especially the women...sorry I'm biased) have to live with. What's wrong with fixing it for them?

Imagine you're at a buffet and you're in a line for desert. You see a slice of cheesecake and a slice of apple pie. You kinda want the cheesecake but a man comes and grabs the last slice and all that is left is apple pie. If you want desert you must chose the apple pie because thats all that is left or ask someone to bring out more cheesecake. You chose to be polite and wait for the man to make his selection instead of going after the cheesecake and taking it before he could and you got left in the dust because that man took the cheesecake and now all you have is apple pie. Now you have to ask an employee to bring more cheesecake out. Do you see the dilema? The Iraqi's are used to a foreign power comming in and bringing them more rights by fighting their battles for them therefore they will never be willing to fight for their own rights if islamic fundamentalism takes control of their government and will never be independant or soveirgn because they become dependant on others to bring them their rights. They have to be willing to fend for themselves because nations wont always be able to fight for them just as the resteraunt may well have run out of cheesecake. We have our own battles to fight and we can't constantly look over our shoulder and coddle them.

 

[nkgupta80]

*sigh* I know. It just sucks what these people (especially the women...sorry I'm biased) have to live with. What's wrong with fixing it for them?
__________________

women in Iraq had more rights than in most Mid-east countries...thats because Iraq wasn't an Islamic fundementalist country. Now in this democratically elected government, ironically there is some fear that women won't be enjoying some of those basic human rights.

 

[Parmenion]

I believe Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions.....That is good enough reason to take him out.....................

America have violated 15 artciles of the Geneva convention as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

USA also violated the UN by invading Iraq.

 

[Stinger]

So I was talking to a vet from the beginning of the Iraq War, and he painted a different picture than what the media does. According to him, he has never met an Iraqi that wasn't glad the US was there. He was very proud of the fact that we were there, despite the hardships (he lost two of his men in Fallujah), and he honestly believes we are doing good.

And it is unfortuniate the a good part of the major media trys to paint it differently.

Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind.

It is very clear we did so why do you not believe it. If we can manage to bring a freedom and liberty to Iraq it will boil over into neighboring countries. We have already seen this. The best way to fight the terrorist and insurgenents who want to reinstitute facisim is through freedom and liberty.

But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war.

Well go read Bush speeches again.

Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

Saddam's Iraq was not a sovereign nation. He was in power at the pleasure of the UN and the US. He was under strict sanctions and a cease-fire agreement due to his biligerence towards his neighbor.

I think the more interesting question is "If one of our military units suddenly discovered a secret room in on of Saddam's palaces and in the room they found 500 litres of anthrax, 500 litres of sarin, 500 litres of racin and various other WMD, would those who protest and call Bush a liar take it all back and support the war?" Is that all it would take, a small room with few containers of WMD?

 

[Stinger]

No. I don't have a problem with supporting an Iraqi opposition to Saddam with money, guns, and amunition, and possibly SOME military help, but going in and fighting their war against Saddam for them is the wrong thing to do.

So exactly how were we going to create this army, train them and equipt them to fight the 7th largest army in the world? Where were we going to do it?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So I was talking to a vet from the beginning of the Iraq War, and he painted a different picture than what the media does. According to him, he has never met an Iraqi that wasn't glad the US was there. He was very proud of the fact that we were there, despite the hardships (he lost two of his men in Fallujah), and he honestly believes we are doing good.

Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind. But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war. Howbout everyone else? If the US had honestly gone into Iraq to free the Iraqi people, would you be okay with it? Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

Personaly I think the answer is clearly yes if Iraq was one of the last dictaturship and the victory there would be a walk in the park. But that is not that case making the answer more tricky.

The first question is can you suceed in bringing democracy because if you can't that will just lead to more hardship. Right know two year after the war it still seems to get a demorcatic Iraq, even if situation mayby will be resolved.

Second question you have to ask that will the cost be. Both for the Iraqie people and for the USA and there allies. The cost for the Iraqies seem to have been pretty high and the cost is still rising because of that the situation is still not resolve. Then it comes to the USA and there allies it is up to you Americans to judge the cost. As a swed I can just say that it could have been some better prioritized. Like for example that USA have spend over 100 billion dollar to liberated around 20 million at the same time the aid to the rest of the over 1 billion poor and opressed are around 20 billion dollar a year. At the same time there are more brutale dictatorship that could even have been dealt with easier.

Finally it maybee seem a bit wrong that USA that have increased there militiary aid to dictatorship sens 9/11 at the sametime start a war for democracy. (Ok the last bit was maybee a bit of a flame bait sorry)

 

[Arch Enemy]

So I was talking to a vet from the beginning of the Iraq War, and he painted a different picture than what the media does. According to him, he has never met an Iraqi that wasn't glad the US was there. He was very proud of the fact that we were there, despite the hardships (he lost two of his men in Fallujah), and he honestly believes we are doing good.

Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind. But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war. Howbout everyone else? If the US had honestly gone into Iraq to free the Iraqi people, would you be okay with it? Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

Personally, for me, I would be in full support of the war if we actually went there to free people. I don't think the people of Iraq will openly tell a U.S. Soldier that the doesn't like him. Maybe in big protests, but not individually. They have every right to hate and dislike us. Don't after the 1st Gulf War, we left them with NO Military, Saddam Still in Power, many innocent casualties, and Sanctions.

What if the population can't fight their own battles? What about the women in the middle east? Where would the get the kind of ammunition they would need to overthrow the government, even if they wanted to?

Strange enough you should ask, I was watching a documentary about the LURDS of Liberia (during the Civil War, recently) they were able to purchase Ak-47s for about $20 a pop. If the Iraqi people really wanted to over-throw their government they could have easily been supplied.

Funny how if one country breaks a rule with the UN it's all "YOU A HOLES!!! I HATE YOU NOW" but if America breaks with the UN, then it's "It's for the common good".

 

[cnredd]

Personaly I think the answer is clearly yes if Iraq was one of the last dictaturship and the victory there would be a walk in the park. But that is not that case making the answer more tricky.

Wow...The Little Train THAT CAN'T...

If it's easy, do it...If it's hard, don't...

Why didn't Lance Armstrong just stay home?!?!?

 

[Connecticutter]

I think that most Iraqis are happy to see us topple Saddam. It doesn't take many to create an insurgency percentage-wise. Under Saddam Hussein, people were living under a dictatorship with no chance of improving their lives. Now there's a hope - even if its not a sure thing.

In terms of invading another country to help the people - I'm not sure how many of you have seen a movie that came out recently called "Hotel Rwanda." It is about the massacres that took place in Rwanda in 1994 and the lack of reaction from anyone else. I think this shows that intervention can be a good thing in extreme circumstances.

 

[IValueFreedom]

No. I don't have a problem with supporting an Iraqi opposition to Saddam with money, guns, and amunition, and possibly SOME military help, but going in and fighting their war against Saddam for them is the wrong thing to do. Without shedding sweat, blood, and tears of their own in a fight against Saddam they can never fully appriciate the sacrifices made for their government. If they fight for it themselves they would be less inclined to sit back and do nothing if radical islamic fundamentalists take over their government. The Iraqi's are far too passive in the grand scheme of things which makes their government weak and open to a coup de ta. As long as their dependant on a foreign military power to do their fighting for them they will never be able to have complete independance and soveirnty.

Nice little Millian viewpoint, or did you get it from Walzer? Anyways, it's pretty well put, except for the dessert analogy, kind of confusing (only skimming) :\

In terms of invading another country to help the people - I'm not sure how many of you have seen a movie that came out recently called "Hotel Rwanda." It is about the massacres that took place in Rwanda in 1994 and the lack of reaction from anyone else. I think this shows that intervention can be a good thing in extreme circumstances.

Umm... just because you saw a movie doesn't make you an expert on the situation in Rwanda. There are a lot of historical things that I'm guessing you don't know about.

Wow...The Little Train THAT CAN'T...

If it's easy, do it...If it's hard, don't...

Why didn't Lance Armstrong just stay home?!?!?

You're comparing apples and oranges here. This isn't about how hard it is to whether we should do it or not, it's about if the benefits outweight the costs. If 100,000 people died in order to "free" 10,000, is it not possible to think that it's not worth it? Because the outcome would be worse than the benefit created.

Think before you flame.

So exactly how were we going to create this army, train them and equipt them to fight the 7th largest army in the world? Where were we going to do it?

Did you ever ask yourself if someone is so horrible, how are they able to have a following that makes them the 7th largest military in the world? If people are willing to risk their lives for that person, to spread their message and rule, then isn't that a possible indication that they're not really wanting/willing to sacrifice for a regime change?

The best way to fight the terrorist and insurgenents who want to reinstitute facisim is through freedom and liberty.

Umm... IF you are hinting that spreading democracy in Iraq is the best way to fight terrorism, then you're wrong. Period. Democracy is the perfect breeding grounds for terrorism.

To arch enemy: Did you create a new account so you could post your opinions under two names??? I noticed "Bergslagstroll's" post was edited by arch enemy.

 

[Kelzie]

To arch enemy: Did you create a new account so you could post your opinions under two names??? I noticed "Bergslagstroll's" post was edited by arch enemy.

He's a moderator. Like me! We're able to edit other people's posts. I'm guessing there was something in it not kosher (spamming, etc...). We don't do it very often.

 

[IValueFreedom]

He's a moderator. Like me! We're able to edit other people's posts. I'm guessing there was something in it not kosher (spamming, etc...). We don't do it very often.

ahh... makes sense

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You're comparing apples and oranges here. This isn't about how hard it is to whether we should do it or not, it's about if the benefits outweight the costs. If 100,000 people died in order to "free" 10,000, is it not possible to think that it's not worth it? Because the outcome would be worse than the benefit created.

Umm... IF you are hinting that spreading democracy in Iraq is the best way to fight terrorism, then you're wrong. Period. Democracy is the perfect breeding grounds for terrorism.

To arch enemy: Did you create a new account so you could post your opinions under two names??? I noticed "Bergslagstroll's" post was edited by arch enemy.

(Shorten down)

Yes it was actually my point if it easy go ahead, but if it's tricky or you even have a chance of loosing, you better think it over before you start. Ecpecially if you talking about many peoples life. But Armstrong was still a good example because for him taking a spin in the park is a very easy decision that takes little thinking before deciding. But getting back and competing after cancer was probably a very tricky thing that needed alot of thinking over before deciding.

I also agree that the best way to stop terrorism is not getting Iraq democratic, up to know it have had the opposite affect. But democratic I think can have a positive affect on bringing down terrorism but it also have to be combined with figthing injustices and economic dispair. And yes terrorist can use democracy to get easier atacks, but that is a price we have to pay. But starting alot of democratitation wars that could look like imperalism to many at the same time as supporting dictaturship is not the best to get either a democratic world or fighting terrorism.

I dunno how, if and why my post got editing the only thing I think of is that I got a bit overboard then I din't remember the english world provoactive and staring talking about flame bait instead, but that seem to be still there.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Kelzie:
Now I personally don't believe we went there with the Iraqi people in mind. But if we had, I think I would have been okay with the war. Howbout everyone else? If the US had honestly gone into Iraq to free the Iraqi people, would you be okay with it? Is it okay for the US to invade a sovereign country if their people are being abused?

I glad you asked this question. Because it really brings to light the hypocrisy of our government and ultimately us as a nation. There are many country's in the world that have suffered oppression at the hands of their government that we consider allies. But we don't go invading them. Were OK with these governments. If we weren't, we would be attacking, right. Whether the governments are democratic or oppressive, our support or lack of, is corporate driven. This time we have taken out an oppressive leader, last time we put one back in power. As an example, look no further than Kuwait. We ousted a tyrannical dictator and re-installed a just as tyrannical monarchy. Kuwait is no democracy. Neither are the Saudi's. Were not massing on their borders.

We are only a great nation when we act like one. That is, one that acts in harmony and with respect to other nations, while preserving its national security at the same time.

We new all about Hussein 20 years ago. Why did we wait until now to do something? Sanctions were about to end and he was going to make oil deals with country's other than the US. If we hadn't attacked, we would have been TSOL in the bidding for Iraqi oil.

Democracy was never in the picture to begin with.

 

[Timequake]

right on.

The fact is we are there for political reasons... not to be a big brother.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

If the War in Iraq Was About Freeing the Iraqis, Would You Support It?

It is. Well part of it anyway. But yes I do