NationStates Jolt Archive

But that's not the point. Iraq is the biggest issue in the current election but I don't feel its been really discussed properly. I would like a debate about the pros and cons of the iraq war without reference to partisan politics. I would like to hear from people what they really thought about the situation - and how we got there naturally - without blatant partisan flaming. If no-one can comment fine, but I think it could be a really useful discussion that would let all of us refine our notions of the what, why and where of the war. Please refrain from bushsux kerrysux rhetoric. I really want to hear why people think what's happened is a bad thing or a good thing. In other words please confine the commentary to actual considerations which are outside of party rhetoric.

You know what I mean: I think the the invasion of iraq was good because ......; or, I think the invasion of iraq was bad because .......;

Honestly, I think it would be more interesting and useful if we all discussed it without reference to bush or kerry.

But that's not the point. Iraq is the biggest issue in the current election but I don't feel its been really discussed properly. I would like a debate about the pros and cons of the iraq war without reference to partisan politics. I would like to hear from people what they really thought about the situation - and how we got there naturally - without blatant partisan flaming. If no-one can comment fine, but I think it could be a really useful discussion that would let all of us refine our notions of the what, why and where of the war. Please refrain from bushsux kerrysux rhetoric. I really want to hear why people think what's happened is a bad thing or a good thing. In other words please confine the commentary to actual considerations which are outside of party rhetoric.

You know what I mean: I think the the invasion of iraq was good because ......; or, I think the invasion of iraq was bad because .......;

Honestly, I think it would be more interesting and useful if we all discussed it without reference to bush or kerry.
The problem is rooted in partisan politics, so you have asked for an impossible conclusion? :eek:

I am really iffy on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. There is no disputing that Saddam was a "very bad man" who needed to be dealt with, but it really should have been done back in Desert Storm when our troops were sitting right outside Baghdad. However, we should not have gone in and invaded on false or rushed pretenses, no matter how many reasons for it they feel they can find after the fact.

That said, it is a completely pointless discussion now. The invasion ocurred, our troops are there. At this point, we cannot leave a country in shambles to fall into civil war and destabilize the entire area. We must stay until a stable government is established, but it must be done properly. The people of Iraq need to know that we have no long-term goals on occypying and that we are not trying to set them up as a puppet-state. Unfortunately, I think both of those things are goals of the current administration - and even if they aren't, the administration is not doing enough to convince the Iraqi people of this.

Do you know why Vietnam fought so hard against the US? It was because they thought that the US were trying to colonialize them, just like the French had for years. Those in the US thought we were fighting to win them their freedom, those in Vietnam thought that the US just wanted to take over. We cannot allow the same misconceptions to occur in this case, but *someone* has to make it clear, instead of acting like we are in there for good.

I am really iffy on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. There is no disputing that Saddam was a "very bad man" who needed to be dealt with, but it really should have been done back in Desert Storm when our troops were sitting right outside Baghdad. However, we should not have gone in and invaded on false or rushed pretenses, no matter how many reasons for it they feel they can find after the fact.

That said, it is a completely pointless discussion now. The invasion ocurred, our troops are there. At this point, we cannot leave a country in shambles to fall into civil war and destabilize the entire area. We must stay until a stable government is established, but it must be done properly. The people of Iraq need to know that we have no long-term goals on occypying and that we are not trying to set them up as a puppet-state. Unfortunately, I think both of those things are goals of the current administration - and even if they aren't, the administration is not doing enough to convince the Iraqi people of this.

Do you know why Vietnam fought so hard against the US? It was because they thought that the US were trying to colonialize them, just like the French had for years. Those in the US thought we were fighting to win them their freedom, those in Vietnam thought that the US just wanted to take over. We cannot allow the same misconceptions to occur in this case, but *someone* has to make it clear, instead of acting like we are in there for good.
Here is a huge part of the problem:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3027.htm

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, which would allow the Pentagon access to military bases and "project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region," The New York Times quoted senior Bush administration officials as saying Sunday.

According to the report, American military officials have identified four bases that could be used in the future. The paper lists the four as being located at the international airport outside Baghdad; at Tallil, near the southern city of Nasiriyah; at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline running to Jordan; and at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

According to the paper, the four bases are already in use by the American military to provide support for ongoing operations against the last vestiges of Saddam's regime, to deliver supplies and relief aid, and for reconnaissance patrols.

"There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan," the report quotes one senior administration official as saying. "The scope of that has yet to be defined - whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access."

What does that say to the people of Iraq and the world?

Heh the US has had trooops in Germany and Japan for years. I think they managed some form of independence. ;)

To be on topic, well if you want to be an amoral, Machievellan bastard about it


The Pros:

1. With troops in Iraq, the US was able to remove Saudi Arabia.

2. Removal of Saddam from power.

3. Sandwiching Iran between two democracies puts a lot of internal pressure on it's regime. Actually if Iraq and Afghanistan do well, it will promote democracy across the region.

The cons:

1. the cost (in terms of resources and human lives) has been enormous.

2. Foreign Muslim countries have a vested interest in seeing an Iraqi democratic government fail, and they are supplying arms to make the situation worse.

I know some people are all going to say its rooted in our partisan nature, :) , but 9/11 would have happened whoever was pres. I also think had clinton been pres. he would have had to face up in much the same manner as GW. What I'm really interested in is if people could imagine a world where they were president at that time. How would they have acted in respect of iraq, and given that, what should we do now. In other words, how does iraq figure into our overall strategic objectives in the war. what can we accomplish. And in the final analysis is it worth the effort.

I'll lay my cards on the table: I think, as I have made pretty obvious in the past, that invading was better than the status quo. But that said I have my own reasons that are completely different from the current administration - who frankly are not all that convincing. A good case can be made for either eventuality however, and regardless of what "our" candidates articulate it is much more complex than the sound bytes we often spout.

Obviously US invasion has altered the strategic situation. But how? what do people think. Also what were the advantages and disadvantages of such a move? I'm trying to get a forum where people can really put forward their own ideas, not just defend those of their chosen candidate.

And honestly if you don't want to admit somehing that you feel will be used against you in later debates, please, please take a new nation for the purpose of this discussion. I think its about time we actually started to think about where policy should be going for ourselves rather than just defending what we consider the lesser of two evils.

Thanks again

bump

My pros and cons for the invasion of Iraq :

Pro - (before the conflict)

- Saddam Hussein was a dictator with territorial ambitions in the ME.
- Iraq was a dictatorial regime with little regard for human rights.
- Iraq used WMDs on its own people.
- The need to sanction Iraq during his reign reduced the world supply of oil and so forced up prices.
- Iraq was suspected of supporting Al-Qaeda.
- Iraq was suspected of having WMDs.

Con -

- The conquest of Iraq has turned the US 180 degrees diplomatically, between post-9/11 when the UN would have been fully behind US policy to the current situation where the US is becoming a pariah state.
- The invasion of Iraq and the 'axis of evil' doctrine has made Arab states detest the US more than ever, if that was possible.
- Thousands have died to make the world safe for... not very much. Al-Qaeda could have been combatted in Afghanistan, instead that theatre of war was left unfinished so that Saddam could be taken on.
- The US is entrenched in a post-war holding position with no visible means of exit.

In addition, WMDs have NOT been found, the means for making them have NOT been found, and it turns out that Islamist groups despised Saddam as much as we did, for different reasons (they regarded Iraq as an apostate regime).

On balance, invading Iraq was a bad idea on many fronts, and the results of it will be with us for years to come.
-

bump