War on Iraq

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Post Reply

Should the US go to war with Iraq

Absolutly, the lives of civillian Iraqs are less important than cheap petrol
Yes, Saddam is evil and the US has the self imposed duty to remove him
Yes, Saddam is evil and the US has the self imposed duty to remove him
Yes, but only with Security Council support
No, war is evil
Total votes: 58

User avatar
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 28 Jul 2010 13:27

When I started this topic there was no discussion subforum :P

Thanks for your post though, it's nice to read thoughtful posts with some depth and content. I have a few points.

1. I'm not arguing specifically for the US' involvement. Indeed I would say that one of the things that was a real problem with the war we got was the way the US went about going to war, which led to most major countries in the world either not participating or not giving very significant support. I know that a lot of resources were invested in Iraq, but I also think a major problem is that it was still not enough resources. It was also a problem that the forces were led by a single nation, and especially a problem that that nation was the US, because of attitudes towards the US in the region, somewhat justified given previous decisions. It's understandable that Americans in particular would have concerns about their involvement. Where I've changed my mind is that I now think some immediate strategy to take Saddam out of power was necessary (and had been necessary for decades) and that force was the only way this could have been done.

2. I don't accept the claim that more people died during the war than during Saddam's regime. While it could be true, I give no credibility to claims of knowing how many people died in Iraq during Saddam's rule. I do accept that he was one of the worst leaders the modern world has seen. Definitely worse than people like Kim Jong Ill and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Definitely comparable with leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. There's a great deal of confusion about this because in his early years he was supported by Western governments (although that's somewhat understandable since at that stage Iraq was a secular socialist country that was investing its oil money in building infrastructure and modernising the country), but then he became absolutely and literally insane. There's also confusion because of moral ambivalence of events like the Highway 80 massacre and the later sanctions. These events somewhat hide just how brutal and disgusting he was.

3. Iraq did have better infrastructure before the war, but by today who knows what shape it would be in. It was only in good shape because of massive investments in the 1980s that completely stopped as Saddam became more and more crazy. Iraq moved from a country investing in its future to a country where one family owned everything and everybody, and behaved accordingly. Even without war, the infrastructure was falling apart and there was no government, resources or desire to fix anything. This was a country disintegrating into feudalism and poverty, while spending billions of dollars on palaces for their leader, and on weapons and military. It is a country that had a strong relationship with Western countries and relative stability at the start of Saddam's rule. The change in situation reflects how bad his leadership was.

Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 11 Aug 2010 17:30

[moved to discussion - Frank_S]

Post Reply