Why We're at War in Iraq - A Watered-Down Version

Maybe the far left can understand this level of thinking better than just pure logic, cause this is really watered-down and pretty straightforward:

Okay, maybe a little corny at a few points here and there but it's the same basic idea - do you GET IT now?

 

I get that is an awful story, Chulium. If true, I mourn the child's "lesson."

Equal to my condemnations of the sweeping generalizations cast your way as a Mormon, I do grow tired of your blanket assumption that "left" equates to stupid, ignorant, gutless, or all of these. I assure you I think long and hard on these things, and do not shrink from a fight if it is the necessary thing to do. I love our troops but believe in committing them in the national interest of the United States; I further believe we have stupidly consigned them to a long, bloody and wastefully needless hell. I believe this war was wrong, wrongfully conceived, and wrongfully executed. And I am angry my child will pay for it, as will his.

 

Hey Northpointaiki, I am trying to understand the war but I have to admit that it is very confusing to me. I have seen a wide variety of theories on why we are in Iraq, and am curious why you think we are there. I read this on soldiers life,
"...we needed to have stability in the Middle East and Iraq was the prime place for it....we did the right thing by going in Afghanistan. However the Middle East needed to have stability. I explained the strategic reason why Iraq was the prime place. I told them what countries borders Iraq and how it was the center piece for that area. Saddam needed to be taken out regardless; he was a ruthless leader, etc, etc..."
http://www.soldierlife.com/
I was wondering what you think about those statements. Do you think President Bush invaded for those reasons or some other reason? I am not asking you these questions to debate you or anything, to be honest I am just very confused by all this (I think alot of people are) and respect your opinion on it.

 

Good story chilium. Definitely puts things in context.

 

I guess that story negates the dozens of people who die everyday thanks to the destabalizing of that region.

 

Rebecca, as to why I think the war itself was a wrong move, I can only offer what I know, based on what research I have done. I humbly submit that this war has taxed a military already stretched thin and diverted it from a primary mission, post 9-11, to disrupt and destroy al-quaeda. It isn't enough to say that Hussein was a bad guy; we have to justify the cost in lives and resources in terms of our national interest, and I remain unconvinced such a cost has been justified.

As to why I believe it was wrongfully conceived and executed, I have spoken about this many other places on this forum. It astounds me that the cleavages in place in Iraq, so pitched and ready to blow, were not also obvious to this administration when planning for the war. The vacuum that issued with Hussein's downfall only brought these cleavages to the surface, and, absent a tsunami of overwhelming force, we have only proved our inability to contain the brewing (perhaps, already full-pitched) civil war. I would argue that this inability has demonstration effects which have only worsened stability, not aided it, extending beyond Iraq to the entire region.

I also believe it is naive in the extreme to believe (1) that democracy, western-style, is a universal prescriptive to peace and stability; in some places, at some times, democracy lights the fuse to an ill-formed political system and brings open conflict to the fore as formerly latent winners and losers come to realize the stakes are very real; (2) that we could succeed by military caveat in establishing such a democracy in this region, even if we believe it is a panacea.

This is my view in brief.

 

That simplification is incorrect.

 

Hi Thanks for your insight on a very difficult subject.

 

Well, thank you, Rebecca. But it's only one point of view. I have more questions than answers and (I mean this sincerely), fully admit I do not know nearly enough about this.

 

well with that analogy, the father would be selling saddam stuff to beat his wife with, wouldn't he?

 

Pure rubbish - unless you like lies.

 

In what sense Iraq has a strategic value? What gives it any more strategic value than Iran, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? Your soldier as usual is bull shitting you and uses words that either he doesn't understand or you don't understand.
Even if we accept that Iraq has some strange unexplainable strategic value, how does spending billions of dollars, getting 3000 soldiers killed and ending up in a civil war that has left the Iranian as the real power in Iraq will help to achieve these strategic goals?

 

yeah that soldier blog is great.

defiling the sacred grounds of walter reed?

i like this part too

how is bringing soldier home or redeploying the counter to their well-being?

 

Whomever wrote that certainly has a talent for story telling. Not sure if it's a positive talent, though. I doubt, though, that many people buy into that, unless they're totally ignorant. Saddam was certainly an evil dictator. No doubt about that. However, he's far from being the most dangerous one out there. Anyone who truly thinks that it is imperative that the USA stop evil dictators should explain why we haven't invaded other countries, such as Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and many others who are far larger threats to world peace than Saddam.

 

You must have MISSED that I said "FAR left" - not just left in general. I respect the left's beliefs, until they become so far left that they leave the spectrum entirely because their political views simply are tossed by the waves of their emotions, such as hate or anger, or even love and charity to the point that they either think our enemies are the good guys and we're the terrorists, or that everybody is good and there is no threat. People like that bother me -- for reasons I will not go into in this discussion.

I am very, very glad that there are still people who love the troops. Thank you, much.

Did you not comprehend the story? It's a practically perfect analogy in this context...

Thanks I thought so, which is why I posted it.

Good thing we're in there to stop those dang terrorists then, eh?

Way to tell us why, o leftie!

No, the father would be selling Saddam stuff to fend off enemies that we needed to be defeated at the time for our well-being with the knowledge we had. In this case, the dad had no idea Saddam would end up using the stuff against his own people.

That's the only argument you can make? Way to support your statement
Define lies, then. Oh wait, you'll need to define "truth" first...

You want to know why bringing a soldier home is to their well-being?? You think it's better that they're on the battlefront??

How come?

If you can show to me how we could gather the manpower to take on those guys, please do... we barely have enough for Iraq as it is... but don't forget we are still searching for Osama bin Laden - the most wanted man in the world.

 

....... "Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son.... what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do, son?"

"I'd call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then, son?"

"Dad....... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to, son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says......





What a twist????? What a father????
Is this how you brainwash you kids?

The Iraqis don't have to pretend they get killed for nothing. They don't have to pretend they got invaded for nothing. For WMD they didn't posses.


IRAQ WAS WAY, WAY BETTER WITH SADDAM IN CHARGE THAN BUSH. Iraq was prosperous under Saddam (before the sanctions) and a disaster area now.
I am not saying Saddam did nothing wrong, what I say is probably he was the best to bring some unity and security between all those fighting groups.


Bush didn't go for a noble reason in Iraq. IMO.

 

New Version:

Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Bush come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son.... what do you do?

Now pretend that his wife and children are real men, women and children who are getting killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, south America as a pawns in a war that they have no control over, so few people can get even richer. What do you do? What do you do?

 

It's not against the law to think before you post.

I do love how this topic has riled up the virulent anti-Bush, pro-terrorist (saddam was a terrorist) crowd. It's as if they know what the son/dad are talking about is right, but are totally ashamed that they, themselves, would do nothing to help another in the same situation.

It's amazing what people will share on the internet these days.

 

Phew! For a second, I thought all that was actually fact for a second. Thanks, man, almost had a heart attack.

 

The DoD defines terrorism as: "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By those standards, Bush is also a terrorist. Probably the largest supporter of state sponsored terrorism the world has ever seen.