Does hatred for Bush lead to chaotic hopes for Iraq?
Published on July 15, 2004 By messybuu In Politics

Lately, I've noticed much venom from the anti-war people concerning the war and occupation in Iraq. I understand their frustration with the lack of WMD stockpiles. It's completely valid to say that Bush exagerated the Iraqi threat. However, I don't understand what compels them to treat the war and occupation as a dismal failure, a complete mistake, inhumane, something that should have never happened, etc. The way they speak of the war and occupation leads me to believe that they want Iraq to be unstable and violent with casualties in the millions. Does their hatred for Bush prevent them from applauding the opportunity the Iraqis have?

I'm not saying that the left holds exclusive rights to desiring chaos. The Republicans might have also wished for chaos to consume Europe when Clinton sent forces to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. They might have also claimed that force was unnecessary and that the U.N. should have simply used sanctions. After the war was over and it was time to install stability into the region, they also might have continued to complain that the entire invasion was a dismal, illegal, and unethical failure. Of course, since I knew nothing of politics then, I don't know whether conservatives were as venomous as many of the liberals currently are.

I'm also not pretending that we fought the war in the name of the Iraqis, but the opposition wasn't acting in their interests either. Besides, results are more important then motives. When ones looks at how many lives might be saved by the investment of the U.S. and the other nations (and let's not pretend that people weren't dying under Hussein's regime), I don't see how the war could be seen as a bad thing. It's not as if the U.S. is more dangerous, considering that terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center before the war, which leads me to believe that the terrorists already hated us. It's also not as if less oppressive dictators in the world is a bad thing. It's also not the first or last time that the U.S. (or any other major country) forced its will onto other nations.

The benefits to the Iraqis don't justify the words Bush used to send us to war. People have many reasons to dislike Bush for the reasons he made to justify the war. However, I don't see how a war that gives democracy and freedom to oppressed people is considered a failure and a mistake by people other than isolationists.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 15, 2004
What your equation isn't taking into account is the election. People are really motivated right ow to put forward anything that can be used to smear the first term, and Iraq is going to be one of the biggies. It doesn't serve their purposes to admit that it is a good thing, because it would present an "ends might justify the means" arguement. They have to portray the ends as just as flawed as the means.

on Jul 15, 2004
Joseph:
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S. and still has scars that have never been healed. The analogy is that Iraq has never had a democracy so has no democratic tradition. A vast underground of corruption both in terms of politics and crime exists. The U.S. will not send enough troops or do the right things to control the situation. Ultimately the people of the U.S. stop supporting our involvement and the government seeks to get out of the situation with the least number of casualties. This is a pattern many see happening.
The truth is that most Americans don't have the stomach for gradual change in an occupied country. "If the Iraqis don't want us there," they say "let's go home." U.S. soldiers are excellent in the art of war, not so good (in the public's opinion) for winning the peace.
on Sep 01, 2004
Buu:
It's also not the first or last time that the U.S. (or any other major country) forced its will onto other nations.
True. However, by definition, one country 'forcing its will' on another is totally contrary to the concepts of 'democracy and freedom' you expect to come out of it.
Besides, results are more important then motives.
This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

CrispE:
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S.
I hear it wasn't very nice in Vietnam either.
on Sep 01, 2004
"This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."


I think you are confusing "motives" with "means".

Terrorists want Iraq to become another Palestine. Terrorism is a huge business, and another ineffectual government, ignorant people willing to blow themselves up, and a "cause" to rally around is just the thing to fill their coffers. The only solution is to irrevocably crush any semblance of these organizations.


on Sep 01, 2004
The benefits to the Iraqis


What is hypocritical of this war, is that the Iraqi people have no say in what is going on. The USA is dictating to them what is happening. This is contradictory to the supposed democracy and freedom they are now supposed to have. What brings this to light the best is the Iraqi soccer team story. When the news made them seem like newly freed grateful people, but said quite different things. The Iraqi opinions are largely ignored.

The motive of the war is also questionable. At first the reason was to stop a threat, and then the reason changed because a country was liberated. Well, which was it? Many have accused the White House for this all being over oil and corporations like Halliburton making lots of money by rebuilding Iraq, and it's the Tax payer who pays the bill.

If the motive was to really liberate Iraq, what about other opressed countries? Isn't the same thing happening in the Sudan and parts of Africa? Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?

The capture of Saddam is a great thing, but I question the motivation for attacking Iraq. I also question what Iraq will end up being.
on Sep 01, 2004
The people in Iraq don't want democracy. This will be proven should we ever leave the region. They are a religious people in a religious land and for them to become as secular as us is a pipe dream only achievable by our continued presence and indoctrination of them. We are also creating an itch for the middle eastern world by putting our foot in their house. Look at our soldiers attacked every day, how long until the need to scratch comes within our door many times over? If Americans are interested in deterring terrorists from attacking us, let us find a more imaginative and effective way. Finally, most Americans aren't seeing the dangers of the war only because they don't have family or friends on the frontline or because they aren't there themselves. What is Iraqi peace? The freedom to live as they want, without us, and I am sure the inverse is true. This is isolationist, but let us not stir the hornet's nest.
on Sep 01, 2004

This argument has been used to justify many of the most despicable historical events - think Hitler's treatment of the Jews / the USA's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


What good resulted out of the Holocaust? As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some still do believe that it was better than a battle that possibly would have taken many more lives.


What is hypocritical of this war, is that the Iraqi people have no say in what is going on. The USA is dictating to them what is happening. This is contradictory to the supposed democracy and freedom they are now supposed to have. What brings this to light the best is the Iraqi soccer team story. When the news made them seem like newly freed grateful people, but said quite different things. The Iraqi opinions are largely ignored.


The US never said that the Iraqis would have democracy and freedom immediately, right? It takes awhile to stabilize a nation. We don't want to leave them on their own just to let them fall into a situation.

on Sep 01, 2004

Look at our soldiers attacked every day, how long until the need to scratch comes within our door many times over?


As I said, 9/11 happened before we entered Iraq. We've pissed them off a long time ago. What more can we do? Piss them off? In fact, it seems that everybody's pissing them off these days, not just those involved with Iraq.

on Sep 01, 2004
The US never said that the Iraqis would have democracy and freedom immediately, right? It takes awhile to stabilize a nation. We don't want to leave them on their own just to let them fall into a situation.

If I remember correctly, over 10,000 South Africans died during the years following it's abolition of apartid...I'm just glad that it appears as though the transition in Iraq MIGHT be less messy than that one.
on Sep 01, 2004
Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?


We decided to do it Kerry's way and let the French and UN take care of it. Look what happened, people beheaded infront of the UN compound and the French UN peace keepers didn't do a thing.

I remember a newspaper quote a Rhowanda Warlord "If a Frenchmen is killed in the jungle and there is knowone else there to hear it, will anybody care?"
on Sep 01, 2004

If I remember correctly, over 10,000 South Africans died during the years following it's abolition of apartid...I'm just glad that it appears as though the transition in Iraq MIGHT be less messy than that one.


I'm sure those who believe the invasion of Iraq was an absolute mistake that should have never happened will agree with me when I say that because 10,000 South Africans died, the abolition of apartheid was wrong.

on Sep 01, 2004
Not at all. The USA did not invade south africa though.
on Sep 01, 2004
I think that many people see Iraq as another Viet Nam, which was a horrible period in the U.S. and still has scars that have never been healed


This is, in my opinion, a horrendous mistake. While I do not necessarily agree with the decisions made in Iraq, I feel that the comparison to Vietnam cheapens the lives lost in Vietnam and makes light of the prewar situation in Iraq. Saddam's regime was not a pleasant regime by any accounts; a wide variety of human rights organizations had this country on their watch list for years. The justifications for invading Iraq were at least as valid as our justifications for being in Bosnia or Yugoslavia.
on Sep 02, 2004
We decided to do it Kerry's way and let the French and UN take care of it. Look what happened, people beheaded infront of the UN compound and the French UN peace keepers didn't do a thing.


But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. What interests do Bush and Cheney have in Iraq?

I just don't take republican argument that we went into Iraq to liberate them seriously because there are other parts of the world with bloody dictators.
on Sep 02, 2004

Not at all. The USA did not invade south africa though.


But ten thousand people died. Those people wouldn't have died if they didn't bother ending apartheid.


But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. What interests do Bush and Cheney have in Iraq?

I just don't take republican argument that we went into Iraq to liberate them seriously because there are other parts of the world with bloody dictators.


Hussein was a thorn in our side.

2 Pages1 2