Is Iraq a noble cause?

my2hands
my2hands Posts: 17,117
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
this is simply for the few war supporters left around here. i want to know why they still support this war? help me understand what your thinking.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • ChrisD
    ChrisD Posts: 48
    my2hands wrote:
    this is simply for the few war supporters left around here. i want to know why they still support this war? help me understand what your thinking.

    Im sure Letterman could give you ten reasons :D

    Oil was the main reason, stability in that region was the second.

    the pro war people know this by now so they will not reply much to this thread i'm afraid. There's no way in denying it anymore, so...
    "Ransom paid the Devil, he whispers pleasing words.
    Triumphant are the angels if they can get there first."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    no one is "Pro" war. war is horrible and I wish it would end worldwide. but it wont. its been around since the beginning of mankind.

    as for Iraq....its a war based on lies, had nothing to do with 9/11, yada, yada, yada.....but it happened and started over 4 years ago so lets talk about it.

    this war has removed a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people. a man who started 2 wars himself accounting for countless more deaths.

    this war might bring freedom to a country and region that has never seen it. (only history will show this)

    this weekend saw a very good sign in US and Iran talking for the first time in 27 years.
  • pjfanatic4
    pjfanatic4 Posts: 127
    A nation sticking their noses in other nation's business under the premise of "freedom and democracy" when they are really trying to dictate to their own economic interests does not seem to be noble at all.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    pjfanatic4 wrote:
    A nation sticking their noses in other nation's business under the premise of "freedom and democracy" when they are really trying to dictate to their own economic interests does not seem to be noble at all.

    Cue X-Files music ...


    In all seriousness, this is a good point.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    pjfanatic4 wrote:
    A nation sticking their noses in other nation's business under the premise of "freedom and democracy" when they are really trying to dictate to their own economic interests does not seem to be noble at all.
    there is alot more to it then that but I wont say this is a false statement
  • Milestone
    Milestone Posts: 1,143
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no one is "Pro" war.

    Politicians who own stock in companies that produce missiles and bombs are "Pro War".

    Or perhaps you'd prefer "Anti Peace" as the propor term.
    11-2-2000 Portland. 12-8-2002 Seattle. 4-18-2003 Nashville. 5-30-2003 Vancouver. 10-25-2003 Bridge School. 9-2-2005 Vancouver.
    7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
    11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula.  5-10-2024 Portland.  5-30-2024 Seattle.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    In my opinion the war in Iraq is not a noble cause. The reasoning behind our invasion, at least the one spoon fed to us, may be noble but the truth as to why we invaded is far from. We may have had good intentions but as the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jrb112476
    jrb112476 Posts: 43
    isnt it funny that the people that started this war call themselves "christians?" im a christian first and foremost, BUT, you dont try to push your beliefs and government style on people with the barrel of a gun....thats not what i call christian...
  • IndianSummer
    IndianSummer Posts: 854
    ChrisD wrote:
    IOil was the main reason, stability in that region was the second.

    somehow i feel that lessening the danger/threat for Israel by nutering saddam's Iraq was the main reason.
    I have faced it, A life wasted...

    Take my hand, my child of love
    Come step inside my tears
    Swim the magic ocean,
    I've been crying all these years
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    IndianSummer wrote:
    somehow i feel that lessening the danger/threat for Israel by nutering saddam's Iraq was the main reason.

    They should have neutered Iran instead, though, assuming this was the logic. Saddam posed no threat to Israel.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    pjfanatic4 wrote:
    A nation sticking their noses in other nation's business under the premise of "freedom and democracy" when they are really trying to dictate to their own economic interests does not seem to be noble at all.

    I would agree with this if freedom and democracy weren't directly related to economic interests. They both go hand in hand.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    my2hands wrote:
    this is simply for the few war supporters left around here. i want to know why they still support this war? help me understand what your thinking.

    Maybe I'm confused here but our "war" at this point is trying to support a democratic governemnt in Iraq. The U.S. did not overthrow Saddam and install a president, cabinet and congress. We allowed Iraq to hold what, two or three national elections to decide these things for themselves.

    Now, a whole host of people from different groups are attempting to overthrow that government. This is not a total rebellion by the people, far from it. So my question is how could you not support this "war" to help a fledglin democracy, when the altervative is to see it toppled and replaced with another brutal dictator? Especially at the price we are paying.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    NCfan wrote:
    Maybe I'm confused here but our "war" at this point is trying to support a democratic governemnt in Iraq. The U.S. did not overthrow Saddam and install a president, cabinet and congress. We allowed Iraq to hold what, two or three national elections to decide these things for themselves.

    Now, a whole host of people from different groups are attempting to overthrow that government. This is not a total rebellion by the people, far from it. So my question is how could you not support this "war" to help a fledglin democracy, when the altervative is to see it toppled and replaced with another brutal dictator? Especially at the price we are paying.

    again ... removal of dictator was not the reason the US is occupying iraq ... that was just the marketing campaign people fell for ...

    as far as brutal dictators - there are far worse in this world doing far worse things then saddam ever did ...

    if you continue to believe there is nobility in this war then you have no choice but to continue to accept its failings however, if you accept the greed and absolutely indifference to suffering that truly motivates this war - you will see that it should not be supported for another minute ...
  • IndianSummer
    IndianSummer Posts: 854
    reborncareerist wrote:
    They should have neutered Iran instead, though, assuming this was the logic. Saddam posed no threat to Israel.
    you probably not aware of the Osirak nuclear reactor that saddam once tried to develop. saddam maintained one of the largest standing armies in the world.
    I have faced it, A life wasted...

    Take my hand, my child of love
    Come step inside my tears
    Swim the magic ocean,
    I've been crying all these years
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    IndianSummer wrote:
    somehow i feel that lessening the danger/threat for Israel by nutering saddam's Iraq was the main reason.

    you really believe that? please expand if you have the time.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    IndianSummer wrote:
    you probably not aware of the Osirak nuclear reactor that saddam once tried to develop. saddam maintained one of the largest standing armies in the world.

    again ... why can israel have nukes and no one else can?
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    polaris wrote:
    again ... why can israel have nukes and no one else can?

    doublethink?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    he still stands wrote:
    doublethink?

    i believe the standard response is that everyone in the middle east exists to destroy israel ... so, its ok for them to have nukes and to run covert operations all over the world ...
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    polaris wrote:
    again ... removal of dictator was not the reason the US is occupying iraq ... that was just the marketing campaign people fell for ...

    as far as brutal dictators - there are far worse in this world doing far worse things then saddam ever did ...

    if you continue to believe there is nobility in this war then you have no choice but to continue to accept its failings however, if you accept the greed and absolutely indifference to suffering that truly motivates this war - you will see that it should not be supported for another minute ...


    I'm not talking about Bush lying, etc. To me that is important, but it is far less important than the present situation in Iraq and the larger Middle East. Are you saying that as far as we have come, we should quit now becuase you feel duped by the Bush administration's reasons for going to war?

    Can you not see the reality here, now in May of 2007? If we leave Iraq, a full-scale war will erupt for control of Iraq. There are various factions who will fight each other. Islamic radicals, Sunni's, Shia's, etc. None of them is overwhelmingly stronger than the other - and as soon as any of them try to form a ruling body, they will face the same suicide attacks, death squads - the same terrorist attacks that are hurting the current democratic regime.

    In order for any of these factions to solidify power, a strong man will have to emerge - and he will have to sieze power just like all dictators seize power - through rule by violence, oppresion and fear. He will have to resort to the same tactics that all dictators have used throughout history to passify their internal enemies. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc... these things will look like childs play compared to the tactics that will be used. We would be looking a years and years of full-scale war, that will threaten the peace of the entire region, and no doubt draw other countries in to support the side that would most benefit their nation. Iran would support the Shite forces, Saudi Arabia would support the Sunni's, Al Qaeda would support itself and other fundamentalist groups. It would basically be a war fought by proxies, and would be on an entirely different level than the "occupation" we are seeing now from the US.

    Do you disagree with this analysis? Is this what you would choose as opposed to US troops staying in Iraq to help the democratic government grow stronger?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    NCfan wrote:
    I'm not talking about Bush lying, etc. To me that is important, but it is far less important than the present situation in Iraq and the larger Middle East. Are you saying that as far as we have come, we should quit now becuase you feel duped by the Bush administration's reasons for going to war?

    Can you not see the reality here, now in May of 2007? If we leave Iraq, a full-scale war will erupt for control of Iraq. There are various factions who will fight each other. Islamic radicals, Sunni's, Shia's, etc. None of them is overwhelmingly stronger than the other - and as soon as any of them try to form a ruling body, they will face the same suicide attacks, death squads - the same terrorist attacks that are hurting the current democratic regime.

    In order for any of these factions to solidify power, a strong man will have to emerge - and he will have to sieze power just like all dictators seize power - through rule by violence, oppresion and fear. He will have to resort to the same tactics that all dictators have used throughout history to passify their internal enemies. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc... these things will look like childs play compared to the tactics that will be used. We would be looking a years and years of full-scale war, that will threaten the peace of the entire region, and no doubt draw other countries in to support the side that would most benefit their nation. Iran would support the Shite forces, Saudi Arabia would support the Sunni's, Al Qaeda would support itself and other fundamentalist groups. It would basically be a war fought by proxies, and would be on an entirely different level than the "occupation" we are seeing now from the US.

    Do you disagree with this analysis? Is this what you would choose as opposed to US troops staying in Iraq to help the democratic government grow stronger?

    i don't see that ... but if that is what you fear - then continue to support this war ... at the end of the day - the situation in iraq has gotten worse - it has not gotten better and in my opinion it has NOT gotten better on purpose ...

    this war and instability is purposeful - it is not ineptness or poor planning ... it is strategic in execution ... continue to believe in the complexities in a place where 99% of the people just want peace ... the war is being fought covertly and with proxies now - the removal of the US troops is a sign that the US no longer chooses to play its game of exploitation at the cost of innocent lives ...

Categories