Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[Legion]

And i'm sorry, with a fraction of what the USA and the UK spent on the war on Iraq, hunger in Africa would not EXIST.

You mean until the donations ran out and they realized they can't support themselves again?

And the HIV/AIDS issue there would greatly benefit too. A fraction of the cost.

HIV research already takes a large portion of charitable donations.

How could anyone ignore that and say it was worth it is just beyond me.

Why? The cost in terms of finance (which is going back into the economy to help development) removed Saddam, a tyrannical dictator from power, which provided for a basis of establishing democracy in Iraq. That to me is worth quite a bit.

 

[oi]

What I personally will find interesting regarding this whole matter is how the Iraqis will react to a democratic system designed to fit the western world, or if we will try to take into account their (lack of) democratic history, or if we will let them come up with a democratic system themselves (doubt it).

I'm under the belief that democracy does not mean the same thing to everyone, since we all have different priorities in life. But the problem as I see it is that we as the 'civilized' part of the world often make the assumption that what's best for us must also be the best for everyone else.

 

[Legion]

They have to want it and fight for it themselves, and that has certainly not been the case in Iraq.

So, because they didn't put up a fight, you assume they'd rather live under tyranny then under a free democracy? Did many of the Jews who died in the Holocaust die because they wanted to? They didn't put up a fight in many cases.

How might you have acquired this knowledge of the Iraqi people?

Perhaps next time we should poll a nation before we invade asking whether or not they'd like to be liberated...

 

[Legion]

What I personally will find interesting regarding this whole matter is how the Iraqis will react to a democratic system designed to fit the western world, or if we will try to take into account their (lack of) democratic history, or if we will let them come up with a democratic system themselves (doubt it).

I believe we will help by forming a democratic basis. From their i imagine they'd be able to adapt it to how they see fit.

I'm under the belief that democracy does not mean the same thing to everyone, since we all have different priorities in life. But the problem as I see it is that we as the 'civilized' part of the world often make the assumption that what's best for us must also be the best for everyone else.

I doubt being under a tyrannical regime is "best" for anyone.

 

[oi]

I doubt being under a tyrannical regime is "best" for anyone.

And that's not what I was saying either, thanks. Rather I was thinking about that it might end up with us telling them how to best govern themselves, when they might not agree.

 

[Legion]

And that's not what I was saying either, thanks.

No, but it has been said in this forum that not fighting for something is an indication you do not want it (infact i quoted the statement above), you are welcome.

Rather I was thinking about that it might end up with us telling them how to best govern themselves, when they might not agree.

But wouldn't the benefit of democracy be that they could change it to fit their demands? In the end don't they have the ability and the right simply to ignore western opinions if they see it fit?

 

[John Reynolds]

So, because they didn't put up a fight, you assume they'd rather live under tyranny then under a free democracy? Did many of the Jews who died in the Holocaust die because they wanted to? They didn't put up a fight in many cases.

How might you have acquired this knowledge of the Iraqi people?

Perhaps next time we should poll a nation before we invade asking whether or not they'd like to be liberated...

Wow, great analogy: fighting for your life and acceptance of a new form of government completely foreign to your culture. And combined with an invocation of the Holocaust. . .brilliant!

And speaking of polling the Iraqi people, I wonder how they've enjoyed watching 100s of thousands of their children dead from US sanctions and bombings over the past decade? I wonder if anyone's even asked them what form of government they want now that Saddam is gone? What if they find a democratic system unpalatable? Guess what. . .we'll still shove one down their throats. And as Thomas Jefferson wrote, such actions, while having the appearance of a noble cause, are done under a flag of tyranny and not freedom.

In the fall of 2002, George Bush said something along the lines of "Any day now could be the day on which Saddam hands terrorists a WMD." Such a statement implies a belief that Saddam definitely possessed at least one WMD in the fall of 2002. How did Dubya come to such a belief? Did anyone in the US intelligence community ever tell him that Saddam possessed WMD that could be immediately handed over to terrorists in the fall of 2002? Isn't such rhetoric therefore irresponsibly dishonest? I mean, c'mon, this is the original justification for invading Iraq, not removing a dictator. But now it's all "oops, no WMD, ummm, yet, but, hey!, at least we got rid of one bad man. . .not too shabby for a few 100 billion of our tax dollars and 100s of US soldiers, eh?" from the right wing. Meanwhile, other dictators more dangerous to the international community and deadly to their own people are left untouched, and I'm supposed to stand up 'n cheer Bush as a principled leader? The same Bush whose family has way too many business dealings with the Saudi royal family for my comfort.

When as a society will we learn to forego these insipid ideological wars?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In the fall of 2002, George Bush said something along the lines of "Any day now could be the day on which Saddam hands terrorists a WMD." Such a statement implies a belief that Saddam definitely possessed at least one WMD in the fall of 2002. How did Dubya come to such a belief?

Because every bit of intelligence he had, our Prior Prsident had, and every one else internationally believed the same exact thing?

NO ONE ever questioned Sadam's inability to come up / account for the WMD we (meaning the world community) knew he had.

That wasn't even on the table back in 2002.

The debatable was only "what should we do about it."

 

[Sazar]

And since when has America had a good record when we directly interfere in other nations?

Well, we had World War 2 (the reconstruction, not the use of atomic weapons). That went well--look at Japan and Germany today.

well see other than the obvious replies that john and co have posted you overlook the small/minor/seemingly irrrelevant detail of germany and japan SURRENDERING...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

well see other than the obvious replies that john and co have posted you overlook the small/minor/seemingly irrrelevant detail of germany and japan SURRENDERING...

And we captured Sadam.

Or do you think Germany surrendering was the last of Nazi resistance?

 

[Legion]

Wow, great analogy: fighting for your life and acceptance of a new form of government completely foreign to your culture. And combined with an invocation of the Holocaust. . .brilliant!

Right, just as your sweeping generalization that people who do not fight back must therefore be silently condoning their own oppression. Btw, brilliant rebuttle.

-btw you didn't answer my question as to how you came to the knowledge Iraqi's do not want democracy.

And speaking of polling the Iraqi people, I wonder how they've enjoyed watching 100s of thousands of their children dead from US sanctions and bombings over the past decade?

US sanctions, hardly, try UN sponsored sanctions. Over 100,000 dead? I say thats bullshit. during the oil for food act billions of dollars was provided to Iraq for the purpose of providing for the nation. However, saddam would rather spend thse billions building Palaces.

I wonder if anyone's even asked them what form of government they want now that Saddam is gone?

I wonder if any of them would say a tyrannical dictatorship...

What if they find a democratic system unpalatable? Guess what. . .we'll still shove one down their throats. And as Thomas Jefferson wrote, such actions, while having the appearance of a noble cause, are done under a flag of tyranny and not freedom.

Providing them with a democracy will give them the capacity to choose. Its the best option at the moment

What if they are a successful democracy?

In the fall of 2002, George Bush said something along the lines of "Any day now could be the day on which Saddam hands terrorists a WMD." Such a statement implies a belief that Saddam definitely possessed at least one WMD in the fall of 2002. How did Dubya come to such a belief? Did anyone in the US intelligence community ever tell him that Saddam possessed WMD that could be immediately handed over to terrorists in the fall of 2002?

I don't recall our discussion having anything to do with WMD.

Isn't such rhetoric therefore irresponsibly dishonest?

Did i make a comment defending such rhetoric?

I mean, c'mon, this is the original justification for invading Iraq, not removing a dictator. But now it's all "oops, no WMD, ummm, yet, but, hey!, at least we got rid of one bad man. . .not too shabby for a few 100 billion of our tax dollars and 100s of US soldiers, eh?" from the right wing.

There were many justifications for the invasion into Iraq, whether you view this to be the "original" (what ever significance that may have to you i do not know) doesn't negate many others. The right wing i know never preached one single reason. The left jsut conviently overlooked them in their tirade to demonize the right...

Of course there is nothing coming from the left to note. None of them provided ways by which to remove saddam by alternative means. Their argument as of late has been to rail against WMD while ignoring all other positive arguments for the war.

Meanwhile, other dictators more dangerous to the international community and deadly to their own people are left untouched, and I'm supposed to stand up 'n cheer Bush as a principled leader?

Hmmm sounds fallacious. It appears to me that if we tried to remove them the same thing would occur. Left wing nuts would come out disputing the "original" reason for the war while ignoring the multitude of positive reasons for it. All the while bitching about other "more dangerous" dictators.

It is an interesting question. WHy haven't these dictators been removed? Possibly because of the apathy you preach. These people clearly don't mind being oppressed as they are obviously not fighting back.

The same Bush whose family has way too many business dealings with the Saudi royal family for my comfort.

I am not in a position to evaluate such business dealings.

However in past threads i have noted people stating the US provided chemical arms to Iraq while ignoring France's development of their nuclear facilities. At what point do business dealings indicate subversive behavior?

When as a society will we learn to forego these insipid ideological wars?

I suppose the moment the world is perfectly free of dictators...

I have my doubts...we live in a world where we weep for murdered children but kill millions ouselves only to parade it as a victory for women's rights...

 

[Sazar]

In the fall of 2002, George Bush said something along the lines of "Any day now could be the day on which Saddam hands terrorists a WMD." Such a statement implies a belief that Saddam definitely possessed at least one WMD in the fall of 2002. How did Dubya come to such a belief?

Because every bit of intelligence he had, our Prior Prsident had, and every one else internationally believed the same exact thing?

NO ONE ever questioned Sadam's inability to come up / account for the WMD we (meaning the world community) knew he had.

That wasn't even on the table back in 2002.

The debatable was only "what should we do about it."

and that is basically the only card the conservatives who support the war and other supporters of the wall have to play...

but @ the same time the international community did not bite on the fact that iraq was a threat when bush wanted to go to war...

recall pretty much all the information given to the international community to propagate war consisted of saddam's use of chemical warfare agents... the majority of these instances occured while iraq was a US ally... the remainder during the gulf war 1...

now consider that the us admin did not have anyone on saddam's inner circle and were in fact going on the assumption of how badass saddam was on hearsay from defectors and the like... how do we validate the existence of the various programs he was alleged to have had?

saddam DID come forth and provide evidence to the UN vis a vis stockpiles of wmd and their status but they did not equate with

a) the actual numbers from total sales/procurements et al
b) the numbers put forth by defectors and the like...

further look @ it from this perspective... pakistan is a far greater threat.. a known nuclear power which has actively forwarded nuclear technology to nations on bush's axis of evil platform... what have we done about pakistan ?

nothing... there has been little to no coverage of Khan's admission and subsequent pardon from musharraf... there has on the other hand been a fair deal of "Pakistan rallies troops and strikes again al qaeda" headlines.. double standards perhaps ? are our criterion for our safety dependent on whom we can squash like a bug and preen our feathers or do they actually have some guidelines for consistency and actively going after and plugging massive holes in our intelligence as well as our security network...

keep in mind we did not learn about pakistan's nuclear program sharing through OUR network but rather the much maligned IAEA... apparently some people do know how to do their jobs

 

[L233]

Or do you think Germany surrendering was the last of Nazi resistance?

It pretty much was. The whole "Wehrwolf" thing never took off. People were too worn out by the war and just wanted to get on with their lives.

 

[Sazar]

well see other than the obvious replies that john and co have posted you overlook the small/minor/seemingly irrrelevant detail of germany and japan SURRENDERING...

And we captured Sadam.

Or do you think Germany surrendering was the last of Nazi resistance?

when the recognized head of a nation surrenders officially it is a far different scenario than the us invading.. taking over iraq... installing its own government and then finding saddam...

as was in germany... so too in japan... the surrender of the country leads to closure and you can move forward from there...

 

[oi]

In the end don't they have the ability and the right simply to ignore western opinions if they see it fit?

My concern is that we won't allow them to ignore us. But rather, as I've said in the past two posts on this thread, that we will tell them the right way to govern. Just because we happen to call it democracy doesn't mean it will be democratic from the eyes of Iraq. Personally I wouldn't call this whole venture of forcing democracy upon others a very democratic action in itself, good outcome or not.

 

[John Reynolds]

Because every bit of intelligence he had, our Prior Prsident had, and every one else internationally believed the same exact thing?

NO ONE ever questioned Sadam's inability to come up / account for the WMD we (meaning the world community) knew he had.

That wasn't even on the table back in 2002.

The debatable was only "what should we do about it."

From Josh Marshall's blog:

(February 01, 2004

A pearl. Lapidary. As Churchill might have said, hypocrisy wrapped in mendacity, bundled up in ridiculousness. A true gem. Richard Perle tells the Times that the CIA did indeed sell the president a bill of goods. “The president is a consumer of intelligence, not a producer of it," Perle told the Times. "I have long thought our intelligence in the gulf has been woefully inadequate."

Right. Perle has long been a staunch critic of the CIA. His argument was that they understated the scope of Saddam’s WMD programs, naively discounted his ties to terrorist organizations and had an overly pessimistic vision of post-war Iraq.

In other words, if the CIA is all wet, Perle is all wet squared. Or probably even cubed.

The skeptical voices in the Intelligence Community --- the ones who are now vindicated in spades --- were the objects of his greatest derision. And his solution was to give even more credence to the unreliable defector testimony which played such a key role in our bamboozlement.

And did the OSP have a key role in this bamboozlement? I know it's a left wing publication, but this chart mirrors a lot of what's been published elsewhere: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_400.html

Things that make you go hmmmm. . . .

 

[Legion]

My concern is that we won't allow them to ignore us. But rather, as I've said in the past two posts on this thread, that we will tell them the right way to govern.

Alright, what is inherently wrong with us telling them to? Are you suggesting we would force them to (or that you fear us doing so)? Exactly what terms would we tell them they should abide by? Wouldn't they generally be concerning respect for human rights and property? What exactly are you holding in contention. Be more specific.

Just because we happen to call it democracy doesn't mean it will be democratic from the eyes of Iraq.

You are going to need to provide me with specific examples. I see nothing wrong with us telling them they should abide by human rights standards.

Personally I wouldn't call this whole venture of forcing democracy upon others a very democratic action in itself, good outcome or not.

Well the other opitions is to leave them in a state of anarchy...

Free democracy provides them with the ability to change later on to adapt to what ever style they see fit.

 

[John Reynolds]

Legion:

I'll try to keep this short. I never wrote that most Iraqis aren't happy that Saddam is gone. What I did write is that we were clearly lied to about the justifications for attacking Iraq in the first place, and such an attack under the auspices of the war on terror by a president who has curious family connections to the Saudis (and remember, 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi) is nauseatingly hypocritical, IMO. Do some research and find out who Bush Sr. took a job with after leaving office.

As for democracy in the middle east, paint me highly, highly skeptical. Especially one forced upon them. In fact, I'll predict a very grim future for Iraq if we pull out this June, because I honestly think without direct US/UN troop intervention, the Shiites, Suunis, and Kurds are going to rather quickly find themselves embroiled in a ugly civil war. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but time will tell.

 

[oi]

I'm talking about things like how they should handle their religion. Should we force them to not abide by Islam because some interpret it in a way that forces women to hide their bodies because otherwise they distract males. Just 'simple' things like that, really.

Free democracy provides them with the ability to change later on to adapt to what ever style they see fit.

Yes, and it will be interesting to see just how free this democracy will be.

Edit: Will it be just as free as this:

http://www.davidgrenier.com/securitybill.pdf

At the end of the first page through the second - a maximum of 10 years in prison for teaching or advocating anarchy. Nice.

 

[L233]

And did the OSP have a key role in this bamboozlement?

That's the one thing that really startles me. It seems like Bush gets off the hook by claiming that the relied on bad intelligence. Is the US mainstream media stupid or something? They seem to have forgotten that the OSP was formed for the very reason of twisting sound intelligence into something that can be used to support the war.

Yeah, the US administration relied on bad intelligence... bad intelligence they had fabricated themselves. I remember reading an article a few months ago that described the OSP as staffed by "ideological amateurs".

Edit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html