War and the United States

[kylewayneluck]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. All stemming from the following: We were attacked September 11, 2001. The Bush Doctrine was developed. We invaded the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. As of today we've killed 44,206 innocent civilians. A study by Lancet released in 2006 suggests that approximately 655,000 people have died due to our 2003 invasion. My question: At what point have we become the enemy?
We are fighting for world peace (talk about hypocritical). Everyone knows we have nuclear weapons. Not to mention we are the only country to ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So someone please tell me how we justify fighting a war against WMD's when we won't give up our own.

[technomage]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. All stemming from the following: We were attacked September 11, 2001. The Bush Doctrine was developed. We invaded the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. As of today we've killed 44,206 innocent civilians. A study by Lancet released in 2006 suggests that approximately 655,000 people have died due to our 2003 invasion. My question: At what point have we become the enemy?
We are fighting for world peace (talk about hypocritical). Everyone knows we have nuclear weapons. Not to mention we are the only country to ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So someone please tell me how we justify fighting a war against WMD's when we won't give up our own.

Kyle, it is an unfortunate truth that countries do not have "ethics"--they have interests. The things that we have done, we did not do because they were "right"--we did them because they followed national interests.

And I do use "we," because we are part of this nation: the political leadership obtains its political power from us, and their actions represent us, for good or ill.

[Darth Executor]

We are fighting for world peace (talk about hypocritical).

Who is this "we" you are speaking of? I do not find world peace desirable as long as evil exists, and I can't think of a single person who thinks we are fighting for world peace. Last I checked we were fighting to destroy a particular terrorist organization. Calling OTHER people hypocrites for doing something that goes against YOUR values is stupid.

Everyone knows we have nuclear weapons. Not to mention we are the only country to ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So someone please tell me how we justify fighting a war against WMD's when we won't give up our own.

Cops have guns. Cops use guns. Therefore it's wrong for cops to try to take guns away from dangerous criminals. Makes perfect sense.

[themuzicman]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. All stemming from the following: We were attacked September 11, 2001. The Bush Doctrine was developed. We invaded the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. As of today we've killed 44,206 innocent civilians. A study by Lancet released in 2006 suggests that approximately 655,000 people have died due to our 2003 invasion. My question: At what point have we become the enemy?

First, you misrepresent the purpose of the war in Iraq. Saddam had WMDs and was continuing to pursue them. Saddam was supporting terrorism. If you think we invaded Iraq to search for WMDs, then you're still under the brainwashing of the liberal media circa 2003-2005.

Second, there have been many such "studies" which do little more than project and guess at who might have been killed in Iraq. Most should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Third, you speak as though our intent was to kill civilians. Again, you must be under the brainwashing of liberal politicians like the late John Mirtha, who slanderously and falsely accused our troops of some horrendous things. Yes, civilians die when troops try to use civilians to shield themselves and terrorists try to live among them. Our military takes every precaution it can to minimize casualties.

Now, I'm not going to throw my entire support behind the war in Iraq. There may have been some hidden agenda (unfinished business?) in doing so. However, I think it's a bit late to jump in with this, now.

However, you are always welcome to expatriate, if you feel our country has become something you cannot stomach.

We are fighting for world peace (talk about hypocritical).

Only the naive make such a statement. Keep in mind that the life of the pacifist is preserved through the very violence they seek to end.

Everyone knows we have nuclear weapons. Not to mention we are the only country to ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So someone please tell me how we justify fighting a war against WMD's when we won't give up our own.

Perhaps you should stop reading the liberal blogs and do some research on your own.

Michael

[Seasanctuary]

Iraq was about picking a relatively easy and morally indefensible target suitable for covering American fear with a show of strength.

[Alcoth]

Iraq was about picking a relatively easy and morally indefensible target suitable for covering American fear with a show of strength.

Please elaborate, cite sources etc... Just your opinion?

I was 17 at the time and didn't really have an "intellectual identity" then. Hopefully the above request doesn't come across as ignorant.

[Seasanctuary]

It's a personal assessment, looking back. At the time I supported the war and even voted for Bush twice.

The Iraq War happened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. America felt a new sense of vulnerability. The Patriot Act was actually a more reasonable response because the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with WMDs or foreign state sponsorship of attacks. 9/11 was about Muslim terrorists coming up with a clever way to kill Americans with the tools already here in the States. The Patriot Act was intended to improve the effectiveness of US Intelligence in detecting and disrupting such attacks. (Obviously some of the details of the Patriot Act are of questionable effectiveness relative to loss of civil rights.)

But there was another result: the worry that hostile states could assist terrorist groups with technology. This despite the fact that such assistance was just proven unnecessary. Saddam Hussein was well known for both his anti-American rhetoric and his unwillingness to cooperate with international inspection teams. There was plausible (but not solid) intelligence that he may have been developing usable WMDs. He had also murdered a number of his own people. A real awful guy all around. Of no small significance, he wasn't well liked by religious Muslims, so attacking him would be much less risky than attacking Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from).

From the average war-supporting citizen's point of view, Iraq was about the military kicking some butt in the name of protecting America from terrorists...even though the connection was very tenuous. Bush constantly talked about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences which strengthened the conceptual connection without actually saying Iraq was connected. From the administration's point of view, Iraq was about trying to gain political power in the region by setting up a friendly democracy.

Opposition was most noticeably focusing on bad-faith style arguments. The US just wanted Iraq's oil. Bush wanted to continue the fight on behalf of his father. Bush knowingly sold the war on false evidence. That kind of thing. These arguments pushed me in favor of the war because they were so bad. (Same as how terrible Republican arguments against the health care bill pushed me to support it.) The better arguments against the war recognized that Bush may have been acting in good faith and that encouraging democracy may in itself be a good thing, but questioned spending so much in money and lives to meddle in the affairs of another country. Neither the arguments for nation building nor for attacking countries antagonistic to the USA were being applied in a principled way.

That's why I say Iraq was more about being a relatively easy target with a regime no one would defend than a real threat to American lives. In fact, it probably cost more American lives to attack Iraq than it would have to continue with a diplomatic posture.

[Alcoth]

It's a personal assessment, looking back. At the time I supported the war and even voted for Bush twice.

The Iraq War happened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. America felt a new sense of vulnerability. The Patriot Act was actually a more reasonable response because the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with WMDs or foreign state sponsorship of attacks. 9/11 was about Muslim terrorists coming up with a clever way to kill Americans with the tools already here in the States. The Patriot Act was intended to improve the effectiveness of US Intelligence in detecting and disrupting such attacks. (Obviously some of the details of the Patriot Act are of questionable effectiveness relative to loss of civil rights.)

But there was another result: the worry that hostile states could assist terrorist groups with technology. This despite the fact that such assistance was just proven unnecessary. Saddam Hussein was well known for both his anti-American rhetoric and his unwillingness to cooperate with international inspection teams. There was plausible (but not solid) intelligence that he may have been developing usable WMDs. He had also murdered a number of his own people. A real awful guy all around. Of no small significance, he wasn't well liked by religious Muslims, so attacking him would be much less risky than attacking Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from).

From the average war-supporting citizen's point of view, Iraq was about the military kicking some butt in the name of protecting America from terrorists...even though the connection was very tenuous. Bush constantly talked about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences which strengthened the conceptual connection without actually saying Iraq was connected. From the administration's point of view, Iraq was about trying to gain political power in the region by setting up a friendly democracy.

Opposition was most noticeably focusing on bad-faith style arguments. The US just wanted Iraq's oil. Bush wanted to continue the fight on behalf of his father. Bush knowingly sold the war on false evidence. That kind of thing. These arguments pushed me in favor of the war because they were so bad. (Same as how terrible Republican arguments against the health care bill pushed me to support it.) The better arguments against the war recognized that Bush may have been acting in good faith and that encouraging democracy may in itself be a good thing, but questioned spending so much in money and lives to meddle in the affairs of another country. Neither the arguments for nation building nor for attacking countries antagonistic to the USA were being applied in a principled way.

That's why I say Iraq was more about being a relatively easy target with a regime no one would defend than a real threat to American lives. In fact, it probably cost more American lives to attack Iraq than it would have to continue with a diplomatic posture.

Hrm, I actually did remember many of the details.

Thank you for taking the time to compose this post, I appreciate the insight into your view

[themuzicman]

Sea's statement is pure conjecture. At the time, the justification for going was that Saddam was harboring terrorists (true) and was developing weapons of mass destruction (also true), and the combination of the two represented the greatest threat to both the region and the world.

There is the lingering element that Saddam invaded Kuwait1 in 1991, and the cease fire was never really observed by Iraq, and this may have been an excuse to clean up that mess.

People accuse Bush of invading Iraq for his "oil buddies"... not sure how that would have benefited them, tho.

Michael

[Seasanctuary]

the justification for going was that Saddam was harboring terrorists (true) and was developing weapons of mass destruction (also true)

If by "true" you mean "not 100% completely absolutely false," then sure.

[themuzicman]

[Seasanctuary]

People with absolutist thinking may have trouble with this, but I'm talking about a matter of degree. Iraq's relationship with terrorists and development of WMDs were both on the LOW end of the scale. Saddam was a dictator interested in maintaining control by scapegoating America. He wasn't supporting actual attacks against America.

[gharfish]

Put a tin foil hat on your smiley.


>

[seanD]

It's a personal assessment, looking back. At the time I supported the war and even voted for Bush twice.

The Iraq War happened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. America felt a new sense of vulnerability. The Patriot Act was actually a more reasonable response because the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with WMDs or foreign state sponsorship of attacks. 9/11 was about Muslim terrorists coming up with a clever way to kill Americans with the tools already here in the States. The Patriot Act was intended to improve the effectiveness of US Intelligence in detecting and disrupting such attacks. (Obviously some of the details of the Patriot Act are of questionable effectiveness relative to loss of civil rights.)

But there was another result: the worry that hostile states could assist terrorist groups with technology. This despite the fact that such assistance was just proven unnecessary. Saddam Hussein was well known for both his anti-American rhetoric and his unwillingness to cooperate with international inspection teams. There was plausible (but not solid) intelligence that he may have been developing usable WMDs. He had also murdered a number of his own people. A real awful guy all around. Of no small significance, he wasn't well liked by religious Muslims, so attacking him would be much less risky than attacking Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from).

From the average war-supporting citizen's point of view, Iraq was about the military kicking some butt in the name of protecting America from terrorists...even though the connection was very tenuous. Bush constantly talked about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences which strengthened the conceptual connection without actually saying Iraq was connected. From the administration's point of view, Iraq was about trying to gain political power in the region by setting up a friendly democracy.

Opposition was most noticeably focusing on bad-faith style arguments. The US just wanted Iraq's oil. Bush wanted to continue the fight on behalf of his father. Bush knowingly sold the war on false evidence. That kind of thing. These arguments pushed me in favor of the war because they were so bad. (Same as how terrible Republican arguments against the health care bill pushed me to support it.) The better arguments against the war recognized that Bush may have been acting in good faith and that encouraging democracy may in itself be a good thing, but questioned spending so much in money and lives to meddle in the affairs of another country. Neither the arguments for nation building nor for attacking countries antagonistic to the USA were being applied in a principled way.

That's why I say Iraq was more about being a relatively easy target with a regime no one would defend than a real threat to American lives. In fact, it probably cost more American lives to attack Iraq than it would have to continue with a diplomatic posture.

Bush selling the war on false evidence doesn't explain the reason, but it points out that the Bush administration apparently didn't think the reason (whatever that reason was) was adequate for invasion by others.

And the oil issue was based on the fact that Hussein made the decision to trade oil in euros instead of dollars, on account that the dollar was weakening. If this had become a trend with Arabian countries, it would have had devastating effects on the dollar, being that crude oil trade is one of the top commodities that keeps the dollar at center stage of international reserve currencies. I'm not saying I agree that this was the reason, since I honestly don't know why we invaded Iraq, but when things are broken down into detail rather than simplistic abstracts like just "for the oil," it usually makes more sense.

Sea, you do know that plans for an Iraqi invasion were on the table long before 911 (here)? You're argument is a sound one, but I think that would be the only flaw in your argument.

[Seasanctuary]

Sean, that actually fits nicely with the suspected motivation of increasing general US political power in the region. 9/11 and the public's new willingness to do anything in the name of counter-terrorism provided the excuse.

I still think Bush himself was honestly sold on the danger and concerned about the freedom of Iraqi citizens. I still can't help but like the guy. I just think there were more cynical people around him who played on his ideals and sense of duty.