Nay-sayers

[Bonegavel]

A few random points:

1) Those against the war: what do you think about all the people celebrating, praising Bush and chanting "USA"? It seems to me, the vast majority of the people who think this war was evil and bad, weren't living in Iraq at the time.

2) It is kind of funny to see all the protestors here in America have shifted their "No blood for oil" to "No occupation" or something like that once they got a glimpse of how happy the majority of Iraqi's were with the ousting of Sadaam.

3) Why should the UN ever take the ambassador from a dictatorship seriously again? The dude from Iraq, who was always spewing vitriol at us constantly, shut-up and basically proved that he was only saying what the regime wanted him to say. If he was truly speaking for himself he wouldn't have closed his mouth for a second. Funny thing, the ambassador from France is still spewing poison. (i know some are going to ask why we should ever take the UN seriously again, but I'm trying to make a point)

just a few blips on my internal radar.

[Bee]

1. I suspect if you think all those people celebrating are actually doing so to "praise Bush" or the USA, you're mistaken. Celebrating the ousting of a hated dictator is not necessarily praising the person doing it. There's a big difference IMO and the longer our military stays in Iraq the more distinct that difference will become. As far as what I think about the people celebrating, I love it. It's always good to see oppressed people given their freedom. I hope they are strong enough to keep it.

2. Why is that funny? They initially protested the war. Now that the war is basically over, they are now protesting our occupation. It wouldn't make much sense to continue protesting a war that is all but over would it? I may not agree with the protests, but I don't really see anything "funny" about their changing the direction of their protests since the situation has changed.

3. The UN is a joke, but no ambassador speaks for himself. They are all mouthpieces, that's their jobs. The guy from the US says what Bush wants him to, that's the way it works. He's doesn't set policy or make decisions.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by BoneGavel


1) Those against the war: what do you think about all the people celebrating, praising Bush and chanting "USA"? It seems to me, the vast majority of the people who think this war was evil and bad, weren't living in Iraq at the time.

What you're ignoring is the fact that the purpose of the war is NOT to "liberate" Iraq, no matter how the administration is trying to spin it right now. The purpose was to improve OUR national security (not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm not sure this war makes us safer).

The fact that they're celebrating is a great thing, but ultimately does not change our motives leading to the war. The war was sold to the US people as a way for us to end the danger of Saddam's WMD to be used against us (through selling to terrorists, etc.). My fear is that Middle-Eastern hatred of us (which is growing significantly right now) will lead to worse attacks against us than we would ever see if Saddam were still in power.

So the fact that Iraqis are celebrating does nothing to change my problems with the war.

[sachmo71]

Nay. Just because I can.

[Bonegavel]

Bee, technically the war is not over, but they are no longer protesting it. That is what I find interesting. The war is not over and they are no longer protesting it.

As far as the celebration, I don't think you can discount the fact that WE are responsible for their liberation. I'm willing to bet they won't forget.

As for the UN, I guess I didn't get my point across correctly, but I will cecede to your point.

An interesting thing is already beginning to happen over in the Middle East Press. There are a few stories that are questioning things like Al Jazeera and why it was showing the Iraqis winning when clearly they were not. There are stories questioning why we had to go in there and why they (the arab world) didn't go in and fix this problem. They are noticing that the Iraqis are happy we did this. The stories are few, but with all the State-run newspapers and their general opinion over there to start, this, to me, is a major step forward.

Bottom line: most are going to hate us no matter what we do. Now, they hate us, but have to respect that we will back up what we say.

[sachmo71]

I still don't see how we are going to be able to hand the country back to the Iraqi people. What if some rogue general decides he wants to set up his own dictatorship? Or worse, the Baath party elects an ultra-radical leader and they decide to take power. Are we going to keep troops in Iraq until the end of time to ensure this doesn't happen? Or are we going to pay to rearm them and then hope that everyone just loves the new, democratic (see Americanized) government? There are so many unknowns, and so many situations that we have no control over, that make anything beyond the capture of Iraq's WMD's a pretty risky proposition. So before you proclaim Iraq "liberated", just hunker down a while and wait. Hopefully, everyone will love their new freedoms. Realistically...well forget that. I'm a cynic anway.

[JPhillips]

Bonegavel: I thought the war protestors were supposed to shut up while our troops were in the field. Now you want to criticize them for being mostly silent?

As for Iraq, I agree that Iraqis are better off now. Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad to see the Iraqi people out from under the thumb of Saddam. We don't know, however, how this will turn out for the US. We won't know for years if this was a good decision or not. Iraqis will almost certainly be better off in ten years, but I'm not as sure that Americans will.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
As far as the celebration, I don't think you can discount the fact that WE are responsible for their liberation. I'm willing to bet they won't forget.

Yeah, just like the French didn't forget.

[BreizhManu]

Originally posted by moriarty
Yeah, just like the French didn't forget.

Yeah sure we forgot

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Bonegavel: I thought the war protestors were supposed to shut up while our troops were in the field. Now you want to criticize them for being mostly silent?

As for Iraq, I agree that Iraqis are better off now. Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad to see the Iraqi people out from under the thumb of Saddam. We don't know, however, how this will turn out for the US. We won't know for years if this was a good decision or not. Iraqis will almost certainly be better off in ten years, but I'm not as sure that Americans will.

You can look back through my posts and you will never see me criticizing the protestors or their rights to protest. I was merely pointing out that, I my humble opinion, they saw the people of Iraq not protesting (in fact, they were celebrating), and have toned down their approach.

Look, nobody is questioning their RIGHT to protest. Some (not me) are questioning their timing. Personally, I think that many Americans have died protecting their ability to do what they are doing.

[JPhillips]

Bonegavel: Sorry. I didn't mean to attack. I have just heard a lot about how the protestors should be quiet while the troops are in the field, and they have largely been quiet. I've been on a conservative hypocrit bender today I guess.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by KWhit
What you're ignoring is the fact that the purpose of the war is NOT to "liberate" Iraq, no matter how the administration is trying to spin it right now. The purpose was to improve OUR national security (not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm not sure this war makes us safer).

The fact that they're celebrating is a great thing, but ultimately does not change our motives leading to the war. The war was sold to the US people as a way for us to end the danger of Saddam's WMD to be used against us (through selling to terrorists, etc.). My fear is that Middle-Eastern hatred of us (which is growing significantly right now) will lead to worse attacks against us than we would ever see if Saddam were still in power.

So the fact that Iraqis are celebrating does nothing to change my problems with the war.

KWhit,

I've said it multiple times, but this is the one point where me and the war protesters will simply never agree. I don't give a damn what our reasons for going into the war were. (I hope it was for the right ideals like American security and liberating the people, I really do)

At the end of the day, the right thing was done for those people. If it was done for the wrong reasons, I'll be a tad upset at my leaders. . . but will NOT be sad we did what we did.

There were protesters on my drive to work everyday. Standing on the corners and carrying their anti Bush signs. (really, at the end of the day, I truly believe many of the war protesters were protesting Bush and not the war, but that's for another discussion)

The day after the statue fell and the Iraqi's were on TV saying they loved Bush and thanking the USA the protesters dissapeared from the corner. The war wasn't over (still isn't) The reasons for the war haven't changed. Yet they are gone.

Why is that? What happened? Was it the images of the happy Iraqi people? Did they get SARS? Did they stop to get ready for the Hockey playoffs?

I have no idea (though I could take some guesses). I do find it very interesting and I'm not saying that in a sarcastic manner.

TroyF

[digamma]

Troy,

It's interesting, I've been thinking about almost exactly what you posted a lot over the last several days.

There is no question the pictures from Iraq in the last week have been compelling, and I have no doubt that they caused a number of people to change their minds about the war.

However, the analogy I've been coming back to is the U.S. Supreme Court's review of federal laws. Most federal laws reviewed by the Court are judged by a rational review test. In order for the law to pass constitutional muster, the law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. For the better part of the 20th century, the legitimate government interest did not have to be the actual reason Congress used or put forth to pass the law. Instead, any legitimate interest or anything that could have been a legitimate interest would do. My constitutional law professor called it a giggle test. If you could get in front of the court and argue without giggling that the government interest was legitimate and that the law was related to it, then the law was held to be constitutional.

Now, to take this back to the war. In a sense, I think the pictures of Iraqis celebrating and other "spoils" of war are forcing a sort of rational relationship test on the U.S. Undoubtedly, the U.S. has some legitimate interest in promoting democracy and human rights across the globe--there is a legitimate interest in liberating people.

But, I don't believe that our reason for going over there was to "liberate" the Iraqi people (no matter how many times President Bush says it).

And I'm not sure if I can, by analogy, simply apply a sort of rational review to now justify the war. This is, as you point out in your first sentence, the crux of the disagreement.

[TroyF]

"And I'm not sure if I can, by analogy, simply apply a sort of rational review to now justify the war."

digamma,

Just want to clarify that I was for the war years before it started. I'm not trying to apply a rational support for the war, I already had it there before it started.

I can see how people without that viewpoint would have a hard time changing it now. I don't think the disagreement will ever be settled.

TroyF

[tucker342]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
A few random points:
3) Why should the UN ever take the ambassador from a dictatorship seriously again? The dude from Iraq, who was always spewing vitriol at us constantly, shut-up and basically proved that he was only saying what the regime wanted him to say. If he was truly speaking for himself he wouldn't have closed his mouth for a second. Funny thing, the ambassador from France is still spewing poison. (i know some are going to ask why we should ever take the UN seriously again, but I'm trying to make a point)

just a few blips on my internal radar.

Of course he's going to say what they want him to say. He doesn't speak for himself, he speaks for the leader of the country.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by TroyF
KWhit,

I've said it multiple times, but this is the one point where me and the war protesters will simply never agree. I don't give a damn what our reasons for going into the war were. (I hope it was for the right ideals like American security and liberating the people, I really do)

At the end of the day, the right thing was done for those people. If it was done for the wrong reasons, I'll be a tad upset at my leaders. . . but will NOT be sad we did what we did.

Fine. But (for argument's sake) what if this war turns the Arab world further against us and we begin to see the types of terrorist attacks that Israel has. Will it be worth "liberating" the Iraqis then?

Of course, I'm not saying that we'll see that kind of terrorism, but it could very well get worse because of this war.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by KWhit
what if this war turns the Arab world further against us and we begin to see the types of terrorist attacks that Israel has. Will it be worth "liberating" the Iraqis then?

Of course, I'm not saying that we'll see that kind of terrorism, but it could very well get worse because of this war.

I hear that Islamic Fundamentalists are very excited with this war because it gives them an excuse to attack the US. For the last dozen years they have been sitting around doing nothing waiting for the US to do something bad to them, but now they can finally act. I'm sure that the whole cutting off of a lot of their funding won't make us safer in the long run either.

[MJ4H]

Not doing anything because we fear terrorists is scarier imo.

[AgPete]

Hey, I'm as human as the next guy and I feel happy for these people that are being given freedom for the first time and I also cringe at the stories of Hussein's brutality. But we're not the world's international policeman, and I don't want to see the U.S. become one. If we really cared about oppressed people, we had a great chance to overthrow Hussein during the elder Bush's administration and all through the Clinton years. There are numerous states with equally brutal regimes.

Facts are we invaded Iraq because we were afraid of their weapons of mass destruction and their support of terrorism. We felt it would get worse as time went on. I supported that but I also put a lot of faith in my leaders. If we don't find anything worth writing home about with Iraqi supported terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, this war may not have been worth it.

I've said before though, I'll still sleep easier knowing someone like Hussein is gone and I don't fault the U.S. for their pre-emptive strike strategy because Hussein had nothing to lose and might have become a power in terrorism. Few casualties so far and little instability in the region. Time will tell if this was worth it. In the short run, we need to find more evidence supporting our reason to invade Iraq to bring the world community back to our side, and in the long run, we need to see how much money we'll spend and what type of government will come to power in Iraq. If he wasn't going to be a threat against us with terrorism, frankly, I'd rather see Hussein in power than any potential fanatic theocracy much like Iran after the Shah was deposed. If we find little proof that Hussein was a terrorist threat against us, the anti-American hatred we spawn and future terrorist cells may not have been worth it. Remember, they're watch Al-Jazeera and other biased new agencies, not CNN. Also, will other countries suddenly become scared of the United States and not aid terrorists because they're afraid of us? I doubt it. Once we invade Syria, maybe countries will take our strong stance against terrorism serious, but that's a whole new can of worms.

Crazy world, I hope our leaders are making the right decisions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Once we invade Syria, maybe countries will take our strong stance against terrorism serious, but that's a whole new can of worms.

I'm still surprised, I guess, that there are people who have forgotten or still fail to recognize that the President seems to have meant what he said to Congress in September 2001.

" Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

[AgPete]

I'm curious if the other states will collapse as quickly as Iraq did though. Not all states need to threaten members of the family to get their citizens to fight. Most Iraqis seemed to welcome a regime change and that was part of the Pentagon's strategy but I wonder if Syria or other nations citizens will act the same. We were lucky, looks like Hussein didn't have much control over his people other than his thug enforcers. Nevermind Syria, how about Iran or North Korea?

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by AgPete
I'm curious if the other states will collapse as quickly as Iraq did though. Not all states need to threaten members of the family to get their citizens to fight. Most Iraqis seemed to welcome a regime change and that was part of the Pentagon's strategy but I wonder if Syria or other nations citizens will act the same. We were lucky, looks like Hussein didn't have much control over his people other than his thug enforcers. Nevermind Syria, how about Iran or North Korea?

I don't think that the US is planning on invading any of those three countries. I think that the plan is to put pressure on those governments to make a real change. I'm no expert and I really can't tell you how successfull we will be. I know that Iran's poltical landscape is unstable. The goverment there is not nearly as strong as Hussein's, and there is a huge movement toward democracy there. North Korea is starving itself to death, and is seeking help the only way they know how (threats). No one seems to know what Syria is going to do from one minute to the next. It doesn't seem like their leader is very stable.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Bonegavel: Sorry. I didn't mean to attack. I have just heard a lot about how the protestors should be quiet while the troops are in the field, and they have largely been quiet. I've been on a conservative hypocrit bender today I guess.

No problem, and I see my original comment may not have been worded the bestest :-)

As far as AgPete's comment about not finding the actual weapons, I say be patient. They've had many years experience in hiding these things and it is a large country full of sand where things are easily buried and not easily found.

[Anrhydeddu]

I found this part of an article very interesting.

"Saddam's fall and the American military operation's great success has had a real sobering effect on the Middle East. It's a wake-up call," said Scott Lasensky, an expert on the region for the Council on Foreign Relations.

To quote on of my American heroes, "speak softly and carry a big stick". To me, there is no better outcome than to make America more secure and to reduce the chance of more immediate conflicts. Just like with raising a child, sometimes a little bit of tough love and pain will do wonders.