Against Iraqi War, Against Iraqi Peace?

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 2)

bakerstreet

on Sep 02, 2004

"But Bush has said that he would never have gone into Rhowonda because it is not in our interests. "

When, and where? Clinton said that intervening in Rwanda wasn't in US interests while the genocide was occuring, but I have no knowledge of Bush ever making such a comment. Care to back that up?

"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."

The Iraqi people have a government, and they are now being led by them. The origanal governing council is now defunct, and a Parliament was chosen by 1300 delegates from around Iraq. They had their first meeting this week. The US isn't dictating anything at this point, other than working alongside the Iraqi government to secure the nation until they have the strength to hold control for themselves.

"Where was the USA intervention when genocide was happening in Rhowanda?"

Clinton refused to intervene, and later called it a mistake, saying that had he chosen to he believed that he could have saved probably half the people who died. That would be mistake that caused the deaths of roughly 400,000 people. Kerry, I might add, along with many of his Democrat counterparts voted AGAINST the gulf war, AFTER Bush Sr. had gotten UN approval, build a coalition, and after Hussein had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. I think you can see a pattern of behavior with their party, and it rarely falls on international compassion.

"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"

Iraq has been, and still is one of the most secular nations in the Arab world. As I said, they came together and formed a secular Parliament. Over and over they have shown that they do not want a religious state. Few in that region do, which is why bin Laden had to go to Afghanistan and why Iran has so little support from its Arab counterparts.

sandy2

on Sep 02, 2004

The role of the United States is not to go around helping the rest of the world by taking down their governments. First of all, it is shaky to say the least that this actually helps them. The USA Military is to be used for defense and security ONLY (as well as the defense and security of our close allies, or in a global conflict). That is it. We are not the police. We are not the World's gaurdian angel. We are a republic that should look out for the good of its citizens.

messybuu

on Sep 02, 2004

That might have been true before, but after World War II, almost every single battle fought involved an enemy that was no threat to us or our allies.

ShoZan

on Sep 02, 2004

Some FYI Information about Rwanda with the quote from 10:

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?"

Wasn't there a mercenary group of about a hundred people from a US Based Mercenary company keeping that nation in check, than the UN comes in and loads of Rwandans die, where as the Mercenaries had established peace but were chased out because the UN wanted to get involved. It was on the History Channel talking about Mercenaries throughout history and the modern day, can't remember exactly but I thought it was Rwanda, when I find out the name of the Mercenary group I will post some more information on it.

In reply to 17:

You know the United States has seriously tried this throughout our 1900 and on military history. Just like we tried to stay out of World Wars 1 and 2, but eventually got drawn in because of our allies. Because we are apart of the world we will help our Allies, including when it comes to SERIOUS UN action, otherwise few things will get done, can we name one place that the UN has taken care that the US did not get involved, and that's the problem, we are apart of the world's police, and the only way this will change is to pressure UN nations to send more power into UN actions so the US does not have to get involved with each one, the Rwandans is an example of the French failing with UN action in Rwanda. Also the excuse of not being the World's Guardian angel is just a dream which will never become reality unless some other country in the world becomes more of a bigger world power, military wise, that acts with the UN than us, it's sad but true. We tried to look after just our own citizens but that kind of reality will no longer work in a world where everybody is more connected than the past, we are a major power in the world, and sadly we must act for world, when the world's other nations WILL not step in.

sandy2

on Sep 02, 2004

Then we must give our support to either all UN policies that the security council passes (which is kind of an obvious, considering the US has veto power on security council resolutions) or support none of them. Further, we must not ever, ever enter into military action without the UN's backing unless it is a direct and immediate measure to protect this country or a NATO country or one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china) or as a response to a military action against a trade partner and a member of the WTO (this would probbably be a UN move however).

Lee1776

on Sep 02, 2004

one of our other few close allies (Japan mainly, possibly china)

Ohhh my God. I hope I didn't just see China.

Screeech, pulling whats left of my hair out!!!!!!

sandy2

on Sep 03, 2004

I made a mistake... whoops. I meant china to be part of the trade partner part, not allie..

ShoZan

on Sep 03, 2004

What kind of solution would you propse if the UN all votes to send U.S. troops as a part of a UN Peacekeeping force into a country, and the U.S. is against it, and even vetos it, what is the course of action than.

messybuu

on Sep 03, 2004

I think the US has followed such a policy ever since WW2.

sandy2

on Sep 03, 2004

The US has veto power over security council resolutions, and only the security council makes military resolutions.

I think the US has followed such a policy ever since WW2.

Entering Iraq was not UN backed. Nor was it in defense of ourself or our allies or our major trade partners against a military action.

messybuu

on Sep 04, 2004

We attacked Hussein because the US perceived him as a threat (which some believe was accurate). I also hear he wasn't cooperating with the UN as he should have. I personally think that's a better reason than cleaning up Europe's own mess because they're too incompetent to (i.e. Bosnia).

Although the US should take in mind international relations, sometimes it's necessary to do what's good for #1. Do we really want to be subservient to nations that could be described as supremely incompetent?

Solitair

on Sep 04, 2004

if the UN all votes to send U.S. troops

Tthe UN can only vote to create a peace keeping mission. It's up to individual countries to volunteer troops. The UN cannot demand or take them.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!