Jump to content

Need Help From The Democrats


Passion

Recommended Posts

I no longer "oppose" the war in the way that at least the Iraquies seem to have gotten something good out of this mess.

 

I opposed the war on the basis that we went in there for reasons that "we" knew were false and that later were proved false. We went there alone, with a weak coalition in which the United States is the one putting 90% of all troops, equipment and the reconstruction money. I also felt that although we are fighting the terrorists there as opposed to 'here', we also created the ideal situation to promote terrorism and make it more widespread and ingrained into muslim society. I believe that the way Bush carried out this effort was wrong from the beginning and that there is pretty much nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done, so we might as well try and make something good out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why they oppose the War In Iraq from a Democrats point of view. Or why the war in Iraq is wrong and unjust.

 

How about that there was no reason to do so?

 

1. War should be a tool when there is a clear and present threat to a nation's national security or a truely valid reason. Simply put, there must be a justification for war. Look at all the war's this nation has entered into in the past. GW1 saw the invasion of a soverign nation. WW2 is self explanatory. The civil war was to reunify the nation. Contrary to what some argue, people who oppose war aren't peacenik hippies. But look at wars that did have opposition and ask whether there was such a clear and present justification to enter into those wars that was beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes maybe you think its a good justification but should that be enough? I dont think so. If I wanted to invade nation X for reason Y and that reason was not good enough for a large chunk of the nation, I shouldnt ignore them. It should be my responsibilty to make it unquestioned.

 

The above being said, Bush never presented any valid reason, especially comparitively. Was Iraq truely a threat to the US? Was it more of a threat than Iran and N. Korea? Again, you may be able to give this reason or that reason but nothing that can convince the objective observer beyond a reasonable doubt. And who in the end turned out to be right? He has pretty much said they wont find WMDs. He has denied ever claiming there is a link to 9-11. So if you make that argument to the objective observer, you do so incorrectly.

 

Ive always believed that the presence of a strong opposition is a good sign that the war is not justified. How many people said no to GW1? To WW2? Its precisely for this reason that those who support the war often claim dissent is unpatriotic.

 

I mean even legacy and tonyi have stated in the past that they didnt think the war was necessary. There main points have been that they just dont like the arguments of those who oppose the war.

 

2. It fed into the hands of the extremists. One of the most often claimed arguments by AQ and others is that the west wants to influence the middle east and thats why they must fight back with the opposite extreme. They ranted constantly that the US would invade a nation with no justification as proof that the US was imperialstic. And what ended up happening?

 

Listen, just turn it around for a second. Youre in your house in the US and all of a sudden Saudi Arabia feels it must invade the US because GWB's war in Iraq. Now a group that hates Islam and wants to kill middle easterners says Saudi Arabia has always wanted all of the US's resources and that this is proof and that now you must join them to fight back for the US. Where does your sympathy lie?

 

3. We dont see it on TV but do you realize how many innocent people die in a war? Collateral damage is massivley understated. We often call terrorists cowards for targeting women and children but is it much different than a leader who bombs a site with a certain percentage chance that it has enemy fighters in it without really caring what teh collateral damage is?

 

4. How much has this war cost financially for goodness sakes? All for what? He cant even justify it. Look at the incoming result:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/...t.ap/index.html

 

I love the argument that its the Federal govts role to help the people of Iraq but at the same time we need to cut programs that provides low-income people, in large part the elderly, with home-heating aid. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

 

Lets be honest. How many people do you think really justified this war because they felt all middle easterners are responsible for 9-11 and this is payback? Xenophobia has a lot to do with this war whether people want to admit it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's my take on it:

there were a few supposed reasons for the war in Iraq (each one after another was proved wrong):

1. WMDs. That has turned out to be false. If it was really about countries that had/ were making WMDs that we actually knew that as fact, and also would actually use them on us, we would go after North Korea or Iran (I wouldn't necessarily be against going to war with Iran for those reasons).

2. Ties to Bin Ladin/ Al Qaeda. The truth is, Bin Ladin hated Saddam almost as much as he hates us, because he wasn't nearly Muslim enough. If this was the case, I wouldn't have been against it at all. However, it's not. We should have at least have finished the job in Afghanistan (which I supported), or focused all the energy into Afghanistan instead of making it secondary to Iraq. We would have also gone after Saudi Arabia and a couple other middle eastern countries.

3. Saddam was a murderous tyrant. While this is true, since when have we cared? We've always supported the worst regimes if it helped us, regardless of what they did to their people. And there are worse leaders than Saddam, but we won't do anything to them because it has nothing to do with helping Bush's agenda. Also, is it worth sacrificing all these troups and spending all this money, when we have enough problems at home and worse things to worry about? One more thing, they only started talking about this after the previous two were proven false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flying mollusk, your essay is very good. I especially liked the part where you turned it around and proposed that Saudi Arabia had invaded the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot one part though!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have legitimate elections and don't get tortured and murdered for political opposition over here! :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flying mollusk, your essay is very good.? I especially liked the part where you turned it around and proposed that Saudi Arabia had invaded the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot one part though!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have legitimate elections and don't get tortured and murdered for political opposition over here!? :lol

678616[/snapback]

 

 

 

Actually I didnt forget that part. The primary motivation for unilateral war has always been against clear and present threats to national security. In the past such things have been handled by multiple nations albeit poorly sometimes but well others.

 

What youre asking however is whether we alone should now start engaging in war as a defender of the rights and safety of people in other countries. First, like I said in other threads, I dont think that was ever Bush's motivation. Second, I think it would be near impossible to stay consistent with such a goal in mind. Third, the Saudi Arabia example is even more applicable because such decisions could always become subjective when you open this door.

 

The interesting thing is, this could be seen as an extreme liberal viewpoint. I know you dont like to box yourself in one position, (but you are irked by dems becoming too liberal right? :) ) but conservatives have always defined the scope of the federal govt in foreign policy matters as being only to defend the security of the nation. By extending this scope to helping people in other countries, youd be taking up a very very very liberal position that most liberals dont even take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest markotsay7

We went there alone, with a weak coalition in which the United States is the one putting 90% of all troops, equipment and the reconstruction money.

678207[/snapback]

 

 

I'd just like to point out that you didn't waste a single word before contradicting yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...