or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Would you support the Iraq war for purely humanitarin reasons?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you support the Iraq war for purely humanitarin reasons?

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
Let's say Bush and Blair didn't say a single thing about WMD or WOT. They never said Iraq was a threat to anyone else, they only said that Saddam was a horrible dictator who tortured and murdered the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian. Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified?
post #2 of 88
No. Not this war. If the end was humanitarian then the means would nessesarily have had to be very different. The planning of the post-combat situation would have had to be made in advance and not something you began discussions about after the military victory. The way the war was fought and how the enemy soldiers was looked upon would have been differently. Only with the "threath" of WoMDs could the war be rushed into and the way it should be fought not discussed.

But if those things had been done in advance I will not refuse I would have supported the war. A state is not a holy entity that noone from the outside can interfer with. But it has to be well thought through and only because of opression of those inside its boarders. And you have to realise that when you have the power over a country you also have the responsibility for it like if it was your own.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #3 of 88
In my view no. There where, and are, more pressing humanitarian emergencies in the world than Iraq at the time. The war in Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc. Also, we needed to dedicate more time and resources to Afghanistan. My view take care of the true crisies first then start toppeling two bit dictators. Finish the job in Afghanistan then try and reshape the ME.

If the humanitarian needs of Iraq where weighed against all of the conflicts and opression throughout the world then Iraq would find itself lower on the needs chain. Iraq would have been akin to Chechnya or even Tibet. Opressive--yes. Brutal at times--yes. Millions dying because of cival war and cross border conflicts--no.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #4 of 88
What they said.
post #5 of 88
That was my rationale for supporting the war, so yes.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #6 of 88
Absolutely not. I'm sympathetic to normal everyday Iraqi's, but this was their ruler and it was their responsability to overthrown him on their own. Like we did against the British.

If 'IF' they had started their own civil war, the country was in chaos, and the Baath party was engaged in violent death throws...then I would go in, destroy the regime and restore order. That would've produced the result we were originally looking for. We would've been considered liberators.

But that's not what history's gonna record is it?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #7 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Like we did against the British

*cough* With a large amount of assistance from the French. *cough*
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #8 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
*cough* With a large amount of assistance from the French. *cough*

*cough* Did the French invade the America's in order to liberate us? *cough* No, they assisted us after we declared our independence.

*cough*
Learn some history. http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html
*cough*
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #9 of 88
Of course not.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 88
Did I say the French invaded?

My point was that it's not simply left up to the citizens of a nation to fight for their own freedom. Sometimes they need help. And sometimes they get it.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #11 of 88
Human Rights Watch:
Quote:
"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair.

"Such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...131895,00.html

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Quote:
Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.

Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.

Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administrations dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrownan argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian interventionconditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the wars global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the wars proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Husseins rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

And then all of the criteria are weighed.
post #12 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
*cough* Did the French invade the America's in order to liberate us? *cough* No, they assised us after we declaired our independence.

*cough*
Learn some history. http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html
*cough*

Let me summarize:

Northgate - The Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom like we did against the British

Rageous - We didn't fight alone. The French assisted.

Faust - Rageous, the French did not invade America. Learn your history.


No mention of the fact that what I said was completely correct and the statement I was disputing was completely incorrect? Odd.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #13 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Let me summarize:

Northgate - The Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom like we did against the British

Rageous - We didn't fight alone. The French assisted.

Faust - Rageous, the French did not invade America. Learn your history.


No mention of the fact that what I said was completely correct and the statement I was disputing was completely incorrect? Odd.


I believe faust is alluding to the fact that We, the helpers, invaded Iraq.

our present situation would be something like this

Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom, like we did against the british

We didn't fight alone, the french assisted, (as The US will assist the Iraqis(

The French never invaded America, (unlike the US which has invaded Iraq in order to "help" them)
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #14 of 88
In would say yes, but then I agree the means of how thing went down, how they were planned, and especially how the aftermath was planned, were pretty off base. But in an idealistic sense, yes, I don't mind the idea of going in to free acountry. As a matter of fact, I wish the free world could do a lot more of that and a lot less looking with other way when it suits us in the near term.

Then again, I thought we should have supported the uprisings in Iraq in '91, so in the hypothetical world of shoulda-coulda-wouldas, I would say that the Iraq war shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
post #15 of 88
I would have supported it in 91. Most Iraqis would have at the time as well. Father of Shrubbery compromised too much to build his coalition. Ironic I suppose. It wouldn't have been that hard militarily. No harder than what we went through now.

Humanitarian reasons gets wishy washy. I'm still not sure that this may not turn out to be the best thing for Iraq in the longer term, say 25-50 years but that remains to be seen. And we'll never know how events developed in the scenario in which we don't invade so there is no other reality with which to compare the end results, only a speculative one. I think if handled properly this could have been a justified war but it would have to have been on an entirely different time table. I don't think anyone but the most diehard GOP mouthpiece doubts that they understated the cost and the way it would stretch the military. Also, I think most of us would agree that they fucked up the planning for the post-war era. Not a big surprise though on that.

I bet Shrubbery wishes that he had slow played it and attacked this year instead of last. Then he could still be basking in the political alpenglow of his victory instead of being hounded about WMDs and daily attacks on coalition troops and civilians.
post #16 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I would have supported it in 91. Most Iraqis would have at the time as well. Father of Shrubbery compromised too much to build his coalition. Ironic I suppose. It wouldn't have been that hard militarily. No harder than what we went through now.

Humanitarian reasons gets wishy washy. I'm still not sure that this may not turn out to be the best thing for Iraq in the longer term, say 25-50 years but that remains to be seen. And we'll never know how events developed in the scenario in which we don't invade so there is no other reality with which to compare the end results, only a speculative one. I think if handled properly this could have been a justified war but it would have to have been on an entirely different time table. I don't think anyone but the most diehard GOP mouthpiece doubts that they understated the cost and the way it would stretch the military. Also, I think most of us would agree that they fucked up the planning for the post-war era. Not a big surprise though on that.

I bet Shrubbery wishes that he had slow played it and attacked this year instead of last. Then he could still be basking in the political alpenglow of his victory instead of being hounded about WMDs and daily attacks on coalition troops and civilians.

Yes I didn't understand at the time why they did not remove it. I only see two reasons why they didn't :

- they did not want to lose too many soldiers. At this time occidental countries loved the myth of war without any causualties for them

- they did not really want to remove Saddam, fearing that some islamist integreist took the power.
post #17 of 88
They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.

At this time, the coalition was huge, and the public opinion worldwide, would have agreed.
I don't know if we will know, one day, the real reasons (and not the official one : the UN mandate).
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian.

Well, its a nice fuzzy thought....but the intervention in Yugoslavia did provide NATO with a raison d'etre, essentially a redundant alliance since the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Also, Kosovo's mineral wealth and the market potential of the region required the presence of a pro-western leader and regime, ie NOT Milosevic. Then, the NATO intervention did provide a windfall for military contractors (both US and European). And....disputes such as this work against regional unity which in itself could act as a counter to US (or other) hegemony.

Quote:
Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

Take it another way: If the same thing had been going on in a nation without the (oil) wealth of Iraq, who would have intervened for purely humanitarian reasons? Would we have invaded Iraq if they didn't have their oil wealth? NOT A CHANCE. Lets repeat that again. No Way. Period. Never, ever. By the way, who went into Rwanda, for a recent example, a poor agricultural/subsistence based economy with no oil resources, to save a million people from a genocide of far greater magnitude than Yugoslavia? Answer: Nobody. Of course they didn't.

Who in the past has gone to war for purely humanitarian reasons, without some other reason in the background, either strategic, economic, political, or even religious reasons? Nobody.

Sorry to sound cynical and curmudgeonly, but when it comes down to warfare, or any big operation in this life always, always always follow the money trail.

Quote:
So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified? [/B]

For humanitarian causes, the choice of Iraq in 2003 was so arbitrary. If the US wanted to wage war for purely humanitarian causes, then we have a huge long list of nations that need invading right now, including (almost) every middle eastern nation.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #20 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.

How was this war domestic policy? The UN has no say in domestic policy. The friggin WTO has more clout in the way we do our business than the UN. Invading another country is the realm of Foreign policy.

Also, I think Dick Cheney had a differnt view as to why we stopped (as did Bush I) and it went something like this:

Quote:
Did We Go Far Enough?

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Now, the notion that we should have somehow continued for another day to two is, I think, fallacious. At the time that we made the decision to stop hostilities, it was the unanimous recommendation of the President's military advisors, senior advisors, that we had indeed achieved our objectives, and therefore it was time to stop the killing and the destruction.

Some have suggested that if we had spent another day in combat in the Kuwait theater, we would have changed the outcome of the subsequent conflict between the Shi'a, and the Kurds in the north, against Iraq. I do not believe that is the case. I think it is important to remember that Saddam had better than 60 divisions when the war started; that we destroyed or rendered combat ineffective in military terms about two-thirds of that force, roughly 40 divisions in the Kuwaiti theater. But he had some 20 divisions deployed in Iraq that never were engaged in the conflict. They were up along the border with Turkey, along the border with Iran, but they were never committed to the theater. And they were never there for the target of U.S. military operations. It is that residual force, plus what small force he was able to get out of the theater at the end of the war, that he ultimately used to deal with the Kurds and the Shi'a, but I do not believe one more day in Kuwait would have made that much difference.

Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.

Now, if you're going to deal with the effort to change the military balance inside Iraq, if you want to really neutralize the Iraqi Army, you have to deal not only with helicopters but also with artillery, with tanks and armored personnel carriers, and with the infantry units that clearly make the Iraqi government -- even today with a two-thirds smaller army than they had a few months ago -- significantly an overwhelming presence vis-a-vis the insurgents that exist inside the country.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

The above comes courtesy of one Richard Cheney and can be read at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...ref/cheney.htm

Bush 1 signed a document that outlined why we stopped and it wasn't because of the UN. 13 years ago the leaders of our country saw the error of a full scale invasion and march to Baghdad.


[edit]Read all of what Dick said and Juxtapose that with what we did this time around. The ideas presented by Dick in 91 where well and good so why didn't we follow them this time? Why not invade Iraq with enough personel to ensure immediate stability and sufficient security?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

Actually, contrary to the anti-UN story you tell yourself, Bush Sr. says it was because the only way he could have arab support was to promise not to take the war to Baghdad. In addition, no one at the time wanted to drive the country into civil war, since there were reports that the Iranians were spilling over into Iraq. The high possibility of Iraq exploding into a conflict between groups across the region, spilling over into neighboring countries, lead the coalition to leave saddam in place and have everything contained. This was what really everyone agreed on for practical reasons and is just a broad overview. You know, it's really not too hard to research things rather than just parroting the anti-UN crap fox feeds you.

Oh, and I see faust expands a bit with some info from cheney himself. Welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.
post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Actually, contrary to the anti-UN story you tell yourself, Bush Sr. says it was because the only way he could have arab support was to promise not to take the war to Baghdad. In addition, no one at the time wanted to drive the country into civil war, since there were reports that the Iranians were spilling over into Iraq. The high possibility of Iraq exploding into a conflict between groups across the region, spilling over into neighboring countries, lead the coalition to leave saddam in place and have everything contained. This was what really everyone agreed on for practical reasons and is just a broad overview. You know, it's really not too hard to research things rather than just parroting the anti-UN crap fox feeds you.

Anti-UN? When did I say I was anti-UN? I realize it's popular to believe that when someone says the US and UN disagree about something, they are taking a pro-US and anti-UN stance. However I made no such claim and certainly don't see things in such narrow terms.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #23 of 88
Its interesting to read the Cheney quote. A lot of the speculations about a postwar Iraq he did more than ten years ago could have been helpful had it been done again 18 month ago.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #24 of 88
Additionally, I find it ammusing how people say "Well Bush Sr. said..." and use that as an end to the whole argument. How often do you imply "Well W said this, but...."?

Of course Bush Sr. is going to say he wasn't influenced by the UN. That sort of thing doesn't play well domestically with the Republican base, and it would also call into question why he fought so hard to form a coalition that he was then in opposition with. It's hard for him to argue that the UN was wrong right after he desperately sought their approval to reinforce how "right" it was to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Of course Bush Sr. is going to say he wasn't influenced by the UN. That sort of thing doesn't play well domestically with the Republican base, and it would also call into question why he fought so hard to form a coalition that he was then in opposition with. It's hard for him to argue that the UN was wrong right after he desperately sought their approval to reinforce how "right" it was to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Look, now he's using Bush Sr. conspiracy theories to justify his discredited anti-UN statements. Beautiful.
post #26 of 88
Again, please point out where I was anti-UN and pro-US.

I aksed you to previously, but as usual you chose not to address a point you can not justify. I understand this to be your modus operandi and thus don't expect any real response from you of a substantive nature.

But it is interesting how I am now anti-Bush and anti-UN in the very same argument.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #27 of 88
Now I am gonna be a prick.

This thread is going so well and have the potieniale to be the best Iraq war thread ever so:

Please don´t speak to eachother in third person and please don´t hang on to arguments too long.

Yes I am very proactive here but our homeland have been very severely hit the last couple of weeks so I hope a gentle enquiry is enough to ensure that we don´t have to make a full blown invation against the wish of the entire AI community
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #28 of 88
<Buon puts his knives back in the drawer.>
post #29 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
<Buon puts his knives back in the drawer.>

How Unfortunate

Lucky bastard
post #30 of 88
I would absolutely support the war for humanitarian reasons and this was one of the major reasons I was behind the war in the first place. Furthermore I believe that it is our duty as the most powerful nation in the world to eliminate all oppressive regimes in the world. We are helping Iraq and Afghanistan but there is a long way to go. I also think that Europe needs to help out in Africa insteat of just ignoring it. They colonized it and now they need to help fix it. We did not ask to take on the task of spreading freedom but it is one which we have to take on in order to save the world. It sounds corny but I really believe it.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #31 of 88
So for everyone that "supports the war for humanitarian reasons," have you actually accounted for the points made by HRW? Seems to me you have your work cut out for you if you want to try to refute their position.
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by G4Dude
I would absolutely support the war for humanitarian reasons and this was one of the major reasons I was behind the war in the first place. Furthermore I believe that it is our duty as the most powerful nation in the world to eliminate all oppressive regimes in the world. We are helping Iraq and Afghanistan but there is a long way to go. I also think that Europe needs to help out in Africa insteat of just ignoring it. They colonized it and now they need to help fix it. We did not ask to take on the task of spreading freedom but it is one which we have to take on in order to save the world. It sounds corny but I really believe it.

G4Dude, if you were so supportive of the war "for humanitarian reasons" then don't you feel that it was beyond duplicitous for the US to lend so much support to Saddam Hussein from when he became dictator right up until the invasion of Kuwait, that is, for some 12 years! Saddam Hussein during those 12 years was not exactly known for his humanitarianism, yet he was one of the US' most important allies in the mid east. And, for those who say "it was a necessary thing to do, namely arming Iraq to counter the Iranian 'threat' ", both the US (and Europe to an extent) supplied both sides with weapons, including chemical weapons, but most especially Iraq.

The "humanitarian" reasoning for the war is one of the most sanctimonious, self-righteous and manipulative pieces of garbage propaganda ever put forward by a US administration. It is unbelievable that people even give this kind of stuff credence, let alone actually swallowing it. The evidence for this war being for "humanitarian reasons" (it sounds like an oxymoron but whatever) is zero at best.

Deputy Defense Sec. Wolfowitz summed it up (inadvertently) awhile back when he let the cat out of the bag by saying that the war was to get rid of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, even though the admin knew full well that Saddam Hussein hadn't had any WMD since 1991. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said so in 2001!!!! Strange how that (correct) intelligence was ignored, or got forgotten about in the rush to go to war, huh?

The SOLE reason the admin. came to this "WMD" decision was because it was the only one they could find consensus on!!!!

Humanitarian reasons my a$$.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #33 of 88
The US screwed up by supporting Saddam and W. realized the mistake and tried to correct it. This is, as I mentioned before, what the Europeans need to do in Africa. They need to fix the situiation there.


By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's?
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Deputy Defense Sec. Wolfowitz

Actually, I think what he said in Vanity Fair is relevant here:
Quote:
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

So not even wolfie agrees with you guys.

Oh, and G4Dud, does this mak wolfie a lib?
post #35 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by G4Dude
By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's?

One thing that bothered me about the war was how damn easy it was to topple Saddam's gov't. We just drove some tanks into Baghdad, and it collapsed. It was barely a "boo!" If it was that easy, why didn't neighboring Middle Eastern countries, or, better yet, the Iraqis themselves do the job. It's almost like they wanted this guy in power. And you know what, at least for a large segment of Iraq, he was probably no worse than most of the other gov'ts in that region.

And remember that when we decide to topple a gov't like that, two things happen: 1) Americans die (how old are you, G4Dude? Old enough to enlist?) and 2) we are then inextricably linked with the new gov't, which could potentially set them up for failure or, at best, cause some form of blowback against us in a decade or two.
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by G4Dude
By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's?

<rant>What the hell are you talking about? Everyone is entitled to freedom, but it's not our job to shove it down their throat. Is it fair that US troops are being killed for for the freedom you hold so dear when the people we are "liberating" didn't feel obligated enough to fight for themselves? Is it fair that US mothers and fathers are loosing their kids, or being reunited with their kids minus arms and legs, for a freedom which you proclaim sacrosanct yet are not fighting for? How long where you in the military? Have you tried to join the military? I was in. I still have friends in. I have family members in Iraq. How many family members of yours are fighting to bestow this freedom upon another nation? How close to your home has this invasion into a sovereign nation come to you?

I hate hearing these cries of freedom and liberation because it's nothing short of jingoism. If freedom was so important to you then Iraq would be near the bottom of the list because there are many regimes which are more oppresive outside of Iraq. Burma, Tibet, Sudan, Chechnya, Ivory Coast... Why is freedom for Iraqis worth so much to you yet the freedom of these other places worth so little that you'd simply pawn it off on Europe (a conglomeration of nations BTW not a single entity as you believe)?

Jingoism, and flag waiving what a pair. Since you posed the question first I'll spit it back at ya. What makes Iraqis life so damn special that my brother in law has to give his life in order to protect said Iraqi (he's still alive knock on wood)? What makes the freedom of Iraqis so important that American troops have to give up their freedoms. That's right killer--Troops are losing their freedom to live, to use limbs which they've lost on the battle field, to be safe. I speak from experience when I say we all join knowing the possibility of war exists; however, we don't joint to fight wars rooted in jingoism's and demagoguery.

So, how is the war in Iraq a humanitarian endeavor? Also, knowing the current state of affairs would you, G4Dude, have sanction the war a year ago(the old if I knew then what I know now). When are you gonna enlist and fight for the precious freedom because someone's gotta do it why not you? Finally why is the life of an Iraqi so damn more precious than the life of a kinsmen? Remember when you respond that I served. I spent more time in the ME than you've probably spent out of the country. Remember that when you toss around phrases like "I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else" because I know, and am one, a lot of conservatives fully against this fiasco. I know, and am one, a lot of conservatives who were against this invasion from the get-go.</rant>
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #37 of 88
Look, my point was that a lot of people give off the impression that they couldn't care less about these people who are suffring over in the middle east, or africa, or eastern europe, or asia. Now the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was worth 900 lives (and counting) is a legitimate one. Is is a question which I have no answer to. All I know is that if the President had said we were going in for humanitarian reasons I would have been for it. Knowing what I do now about the insurgency and the continued violence, I don't know what I would say. But I firmly believe that in the long run, this will have been the right thing to do. Maybe we shouldn't have gone in when we went in, but I think it needed to be done sooner or later. I know it's hard to see Americans die especially when they are dying in the place of some nameless kurd or shiite who lives half a world away and not dying to defend a foreign invasion.

As for why I'm not in the army. I've never really thought about it so I'll try my best to come up with an explaination. I'm in college, I don't need to join to get money for an education. I want to make a decent living and be my own boss someday. That is something joining the military would not allow me to do. I'm very scared of dying. There I said it, I'm scared shitless of dying in some desert 10,000 miles away. That being said, if there was a draft, I would go, 100% because my country needed me. I am so appreciative of those people who voluntarily put their lives on the line so we can live safely. And that's probably people in military families don't like this war. They can't see how the invasion of Iraq directly effects the safety of Americans, and I understand that.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by G4Dude
They can't see how the invasion of Iraq directly effects the safety of Americans, and I understand that.

Maybe you could explain it then... and please, spare us the wishful thinking about saving us all from the mythical WoMD.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Maybe you could explain it then... and please, spare us the wishful thinking about saving us all from the mythical WoMD.

Whoa there cowboy! If you read my posts, I haven't said anything about WMDs so I'm not about to start. Furthermore, I never said that the war DID make Americans more secure. I was talking about military families and why they would not support the war.

Way to spin though!
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally posted by G4Dude
Whoa there cowboy! If you read my posts, I haven't said anything about WMDs.

and if you read HIS post you'd see he was asking you to keep it that way.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Would you support the Iraq war for purely humanitarin reasons?