Do you think we would be better off?

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

So was this war a last resort, Coda?

If Bush and Blair had such reliable evidence of WMD why didn't they limit their attacks to these areas?

Julian gives some reasons for the invasion. But we have killed over 40,000 of their civilians - does that make us better than Saddam. Or is it just that these people are not victims but collateral damage.

And, more to the point, how further forward are we. What have we really achieved by doing things the way we did.

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

Dolly, I appreciate your points. I'd hate to see any innocent civilians killed in the process of war. But I beg to differ on your point of view. I do, indeed, think the country is much better without Saddam Hussein. His regime proved more than 19 times that he wouldn't allow UN inspectors. Why is that? I have a strong belief that he was hiding or moving his weapons of mass destruction to Syria.

In World War II, the collateral damage was much higher than 40,000 in Iraq. I believe World War II was a just war, even though Hitler did nothing to the United States. The moral imperative was to get rid of a genocidal maniac at all cost, even if it meant that there's going to be collateral damage.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Thing is, we know there are these dictatorships all over the world (nearly wrote Wall there!) but the people can be managed and assisted in different ways.

Also we tend, with such nations like Iraq, to lose our empathy. Possibly through our own ignorance and lack of teaching and possibly through the image that people like Saddam maintain.

If another country wanted to come into the US to examine your armouries, would you let them? In a pigs ear you would. Same as we wouldn't here. We all have stuff we want to hide. As much from our own people as anything else.

In WWII the collateral damage was much higher, I admit, but the damage was on all sides. It was one country attacking another. America I think, Pearl Harbour apart, was the only country not attacked. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, they did come into it 2 or 3 years after us?

This isn't a war, this is an invasion and you can't tie it up any other way. If the boot was on the other foot, we would see it like that.

The US were quite happy with Saddams attitude when he was working for them, it was only when he switched sides that he became the bad guy. There has to be a certain amount of hypocracy in what they (we) have done.

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

You mentioned "This isn't a war, this is an invasion and you can't tie it up any other way."

Well, it's almost saying that because we (US) invaded Hitler's Germany, we should apologize. If you're asking what would we think if someone invaded the US because we had a ruthless dicatator, then I'd be all for it. I would NOT want to live a society where my freedom is gone and I could get killed for being a Kurd or disagreeing with my dictator's policies.

I would welcome any invader! Invasion is good from my standpoint.

I agree that we did portray Saddam as a good guy at one point. Back in the cold war you'd find we backed some ruthless dictators. There's no doubt about that. In fact, a lot of Western countries, including Great Britain, looked at dicatators with a blind eye because the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." The world was much more polarized then. There were only 2 factions: USSR vs the West.

Clearly, after the cold war and 9/11, the paradigm shifted. Borders get less defined and ruthless dictators become a clear and present danger to the West.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

The difference is, Julian, is that Hitler had actually started invading other countries, and made it quite clear that he was going to keep going.

Saddam, hadn't actually invaded anywhere else.

Yes, I will certainly agree that something needed doing. His people were undergoing terrible things, but we have killed over 40,000 of them. There had to be a better way to do this.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Brits did an awful lot of damage in their efforts to gain and maintain an empire. So when do we start learning?

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

Actually, Dolly, Saddam invaded Kuwait. His dream was building a gulf empire.

Moreover, he was executing Kuwait citizens on a daily basis.

This is why I find him to be clearly different from other dictators. He used biological weapons on his own people and attacked a neighboring country. He's far apart from dictators like Kim Il Jong of N. Korea.

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

Also, we have tried to apply sanctions and other forms of non-violent means to get Saddam to capitulate. Nothing happened.

We can't always ask them to please stop.

Sometimes force is the only option.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Sometimes it is, but this could have been handled better. There is no excuse for bombing civillians. I don't think we had this many errors in WWII.

Why didn't they just bomb or send in troops to the areas that had WMD, if their surveillance was so good?

Turns out now though that they are saying that the info was a bit dicey. We had one inspector over here that insisted there were NO wmd. He advised against going in.

I think we have to stop deluding ourselves that we went in with the best of intentions. We really know why we did it.
Black gold.

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

Sorry for falling off this thread while I dealt with flood waters and washed out roads. Julian, I like a lot of what you wrote. Dolly, I enjoy reading your posts as well... There is nothing more enjoyable than hearing someone express an opposing opinion to one's own in such a well thought out, well presented manner.

Mostly, I agree what alot of what Julian's written. The comparisons to WWII are difficult, as war is very different from what it was then. Airstrikes, for example, can be much more accurate and may be relied upon to limit civilian casualties. On the other hand, the enemy is presented so very differently. In WWII, any allied force knew a German when he saw him. In this war, walking down the road and seeing a 12-yr. old boy in a t-shirt could mean a soldier is seeing an innocent bystander, or a suicide bomber. Why is this? My opinion is because Saddam was in power for so long, and abused it so much, that a 12-yr. old boy only knows one life.

I should also add I think we could have approached this war differently, though I don't know exactly how and most of what I feel is probably 20/20 hindsight. I often wonder what would happen if some countries went to the UN and got permission to give one last diplomatic approach as a group of countries, outside the UN umbrella. I think this because I feel part of the resistance Saddam showed had more to do with resisting the UN as a whole and less to do with WMD. Also, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we found WMD that were in fact moved out prior to the war.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

This is one of those threads, that by the time you have gone through the previous posting, about 100 things have slipped in and out of your mind.

I really should make notes!

When we first invaded and the pics came up on the TV screens, I don't think anybody doubted it was a wonderful thing.
Many had previous misapprehensions about it, but at that point in time, we all thought a good job had been done.

But it didn't pan out like that, and from what I can see, it isn't going to.

Their mind set, regarding fighting is different to ours. They can go at it for 100's of years. We don't have the stamina - or the resources.

You're right, Coda, our modern weapons should be accurate, so why are we killing so many?

And isn't WMD simply a term? Like 'defences.'
All countries have WMD, we simply switch the semantics if we want them to be viewed as potential threats.

I actually don't think Saddam would have, or could have, done anything on mass. He knew the repercussions would be too great.

phil · Mayor Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 174 Location: Seattle

This is the thing, you can't explain to the liberal what in the hell it is that you are trying to talk about. Like Children, they only learn from mistakes.

They are now trying to explain away the WMD's that were found! You can't win.

P

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

Coda, thanks for your kind words. I think we all, even from differing points of view, are well-intentioned and articulate. I'm glad we have an intelligent thread.

phil · Mayor Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 174 Location: Seattle

amen to that

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

I think it's a great forum altogether.

The subjects are so diverse, there is always something to get your teeth into!

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

A great forum, indeed. I also enjoy having thoughts from citizens of different countries. I used to work primarily internationally and participated in discussions with people from all over the world. Haven't been in such a position for a few years now and I was missing that interaction. I seem to get it here... so thanks to you all.