What was the best reason to go to war with Iraq?
|
3
points
Wow, i guess you are assuming their was a best reason to invade and Occupy Iraq. lets look at the reasons given by our government and see if we can pick the best one REASON 1) They have weapons of mass destruction REALITY 1) We now know they did not have, They didn't even have the goods to make them. REASON 2) Saddam is an Evil dictator who gassed his own People. REALITY 2) Saddam was evil no doubt and he gassed the Kurds, You know when: 1988, I would think invading a country 15 years later will not do much good at that point. To the Evil Point; Saudi Arabia has an evil government, Kim Jung Ill as evil as they come, just over 100 miles south of Fla we have had evil on our doorstep for over 30 years, Zimbabwe's Mugabe is Evil times 100 ...Yet we are only concerned with Saddam and his evil. If you think we should invade all evil countries then we got alot of invading to do. REASON 3) Iraq violated over 17 UN resolutions. REALITY 3) Iraq did violated the resolutions, Israel has violated 30 UN resolutions regarding illegal settlements on Palestinian land...So why have we not invaded Israel? The thing I love about the Neocons is they despise the UN and never think of the UN as credible, unless its about those resolutions. REASON 4) Al qaeda was in Iraq REALITY 4) Al qaeda in Iraq only framed as we invaded. Al Zarqawi was training in Afghanistan in 2001. He led Ansar el Islam fighting in southern Turkey near Kurdish border, Saddam would never allow Al qaeda to have a network if he was in control. So you ask the best reason to invade and occupy Iraq? The best reason to have this war is.... Now the American people get to see firsthand the incompetence of these right wing Neocons and their failed polices. Having George Bush as President is like being in the backseat of a car with a drunk driver at the wheel.The best thing about the war is never again will we put the keys to the country into the hands of a special Olympian, I mean no disrespect to special Olympians with that comparison. Well said! "What? They got bigger penises than us? BOMB THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF THEM! Its the reason why the bombs and the bullets and the Fighter jets all are shaped like penises. Its called projecting the penis into other peoples lives. In other words, its called SCREWING WITH PEOPLE!" R.I.P, George Carlin. R.I.P.... Side: Ours is biggest
3
points
It's always funny to me when Republicans and conservatives think that the U.N. and its resolutions are illegal encroachments on national sovereignty except when it deals with countries other than the U.S. If we violated U.N. resolutions would you say it would be alright for France, Russia, and China to invade us? What about Guantanamo Bay and our secret detention facilities overseas? According to the U.N. Committee Against Torture we are violating U.N. anti-torture resolutions. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/19/ It also seems that our friend Israel is not only violating U.N. resolutions but has violated way more than Iraq ever did: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/ I'm not even against Israel. But you have to wonder what your point is when you decry Iraq's refusal to comply with a world government body most Republicans have no respect for anyways. As for what should have been done; the Barack Obama excerpt given by another contributer to this debate is about as good a program as I can think of. Iraq was well contained and people like Saddam don't last forever. Side: Ours is biggest
3
points
Yes, I believe that if the U.S. violated a U.N resolution that France (snicker) Russia, and China (if they can agree to get together) should try and invade us. The reason is because if they were able to successfully mount an invasion, then it would mean that the U.N. has finally grown up, got a pair and flexed some muscle. As it is now, it has no teeth. The U.N. is ineffective; it can only threaten to gum you to death. Until the U.N. proves its mettle, might makes right. Russia and China know this. Side: Ours is biggest
"Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by the International Court of Justice." So, basically, nothing. He ignored UN resolutions; so what? It wasn't your call to make. The US should have allowed the UN to deal with it. The US ignored the UN in regards to whether to war was legal or not... does that mean other countries now have the right to invade the US? Side: Ours is biggest
"Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." - Barack Obama, October 2002 http://www.commondreams. An excerpt from a truly great speech. I strongly recommend everyone to click the link and read the whole thing. Side: Ours is biggest
the best reason? so many, i can't choose. lets throw some important ones out there. Saddam defied us and denied UN inspections (basically wanting us to think he was tough and shit with WMDs) He was a genocidal maniac. (no, not Hitler, Saddam). Al Qaeda was there (Al Zacharwi (sp?) lived there, he's an Al Qaeda leader... so yes, Al Qaeda was there before we went in). Everyone who had a voice said lets go. (CIA, Collen Powell, Dick Cheney, Reporters who interviewed Saddam, most of the media, inside sources from Iraq and Afganistan). Saddam has had it coming for quite some time too, he broke promises, he tempted us, he ordered an assassination on GB senior, and defied any acts we presented. but o noes, no nuclear weapons, so that means it was all not worth it.... i guess. Side: Ours is biggest
I love my country... but I have hand-written pages in which my great-great-grandmother proposed that the U.S. Civil War was about economics, not lofty principles. I agree with her... and see the same still in play today. No matter what labels are offered, I don't see genuine "clinging" to the values given as reasons. I think the primary reason for the war is economic. I don't know what the connections really are, but given that the major US refineries are in Texas and the "temporary" changes in US tax laws governing estates, I believe there is a calculated plan being orchestrated for the economic benefit of at least some whom are tied to the power structure... changes that benefit George Bush, his family and his friends... Side: Ours is biggest
1
point
1
point
If the war was handled competently we'd probably have had plenty of benefits. Even though the war itself was wrong, unjust, and ended up a total failure; should we have had the man, materials, and intelligent leadership necessary for success we would probably have seen the following benefits. 1. Cheaper energy supplies due to a new, oil-rich ally. We also had deals with the Saudis that they would provide us with cheaper oil if we took out their enemy, Iraq. This, coupled with our military bargaining power over other OPEC states and a pipeline running from Israel to Iraq (and, if Iran really was going to be next on the list: a pipeline stretching from Israel all the way to Pakistan) would have had our energy costs down even more than they already are. (most people don't seem to realize that the United State's oil is cheaper than most other places on Earth, despite being a leading hog and thousands of miles away from the major sources of oil). 2. The idea that fighting terrorists over there rather than here may have some merit, but not much. We would see a diversion of attention away from the U.S. mainland and towards the main front of the conflict, the Middle East. Still, it would provide a wonderful training ground for terrorists and this would probably do more harm than good in the long run. 3. If you are a Republican you would be in a rather good place if your party was responsible for winning a war and delivering prestige to a country that seems to be losing its global esteem. For politicians, victorious wars and established puppet states/colonies are trophies to be used to impress the population. If the Iraq war would have gone well Republicans would have increased their power in congress rather than lost it and Democrats would have little hope of winning the 2008 presidential election. 4. The U.S. citizenry has a habit of turning on itself whenever there isn't an external enemy to fight. Both Democrats and Republicans have alot to lose if public scrutiny falls on them instead of foreign, scary enemies. Social issues, which lead to social action, which lead to socialism tend to spring up whenever there isn't a war going on. Republicans tend to lose, big time, on domestic issues; especially when the economy isn't doing well. A war helps distract people from the problems around them and keeps them from demanding government action on issues of poverty, healthcare, social justice, inequality..etc. Side: Ours is biggest
0
points
What makes you think that the war is a complete failure? Sure, there are somethings that could have been handled better, but nothing is perfect! Do you get your information from the media? If so, you're not getting the full picture. Talk to some of the men and women that come back from Iraq. Let me know if they tell you that they just wasted their time there. Side: Ours is biggest
2
points
I'll ask them; then I will ask the Iraqi people. Couple of things: I suppose you've polled our servicemen and women? Also, no matter their opinion of the worth of their actions; the Iraq war can be considered a failure on a number of levels, especially those set by the people who started the war in the first place. Please tell me, though, where have we succeeded? What have we accomplished in Iraq? Was the cost worth it? Sure, you can say you managed to open up a jar of pickles as an accomplishment; I, however, would view that as a failure if it took thousands of people to help you, hundreds of whom died in the process. It's funny to me that you would use the soldiers as a shield for your position instead of coming up with an actual argument. You never even stated how this was a victory; you simply spun the debate around to "was it a waste of time", "ask the troops then". I can list the failures, if you'd like, then you can try to list the accomplishments: 1. We have only aggravated the terrorists, not put a stop to their actions. Since the Iraq war we've have increases in terrorist activity, both of our allies were attacked and we lost one ally in the process. 2. What was supposed to be a cake-walk with little to no insurgency has devolved into a civil war. 3. 600,000 to 1,000,000 or so Iraqi civilians have died, for what? They are still not free, their nation has collapsed into civil war, and terrorists roam their streets indiscriminately killing their citizens (they didn't before); not only that, but trained militias are ethnically and religiously cleansing entire neighborhoods. 4. For what? None of what the U.S. government told us turned out to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's capability to wage war was limited to his immediate neighbors, and he was never found to have harbored any terrorists. All we've managed to do is occupy a country; that's all that I can see. Even the oil benefits promised to us have turned out to be a great cost to the United States, how many billions are we pumping into this country only to see our oil revenues destroyed by a couple of guys in tattered robes with an explosive device costing them 10$? 5. Diplomatically speaking, we have never seen the U.S. more unpopular. South Korea, our protectorate and ally, has been growing more and more angry with our actions. Almost all of the nations of Europe (except those Eastern European ones that allowed us to illegally house and torture suspected terrorists) detest the United States, including our increasingly queasy ally: the U.K. Side: Ours is biggest
Besides securing the natural resources, homogenising the middle east into a population of consumerist, individualised drones creating a brown field of capitalist exploitation is a reason. Today trading local produce in community markets tomorrow working at McDonalds - and liking it. Side: Ours is biggest
|
