Why the war in Iraq was right

[BaalShemRa]

Q: Proving you don’t have something is quite difficult. Proving someone else has something is much easier. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those who say Iraq has WMDs?
A:Saddam bad!

Q:Say we invade, the conventional part of the war will go over well ( the US outspends the 20 closest countries together in military expenditures ) but what about afterwards? Will the welcoming with flowers be widespread and long-lasting? What if a substantial part of the Iraqi population turns against the US, that ethnic tensions flare up and Iraq becomes a bigger Lebanon?
A:Saddam bad!

Q:Is the Bush administration really committed to bringing democracy to the Middle-East or do they just want a client and cover it up with some popular rhetoric? How much of the “Marshall plan for Afghanistan” has actually been delivered and how much control does the Karzai government hold in that country? Will Iraq end up like Egypt and if so, will it have been worth the cost in money, credibility and lives?
A:Saddam bad!





Alright, that was overly snarky. It did get the impression that was the bulk of the pro-war argumentation though at some point.

[Franc28]

Your answers are incomplete. You forgot the desire for revenge ("kill them all !") and the American imperialist thirst ("we're the world's big daddy !").

You can't account for Americans. They must be the stupidest and most violent people in the world.

[droskey]

Franc28

You can't account for Americans. They must be the stupidest and most violent people in the world.

No, we're not.

[Griffey]

I agree with jacopo. It isn't fair for you to make a generalization about a group of people like that, especially when half of us didn't vote for our current administration!

There are stupid and violent Americans, yes. It doesn't mean that all Americans are stupid and violent. The stupidest and most violent ones are just the loudest.

But back to the topic...BaalShemRa that is freaking hilarious, I was laughing my head off. When did you get so good at analyzing the pro-war mentality? You forgot to mention "How dare you question Bush, you anti-American!" though...

[pieisgood]

Very nice, BSR. But, being the bush administration's answers, I think there was a lack of typos.

Here's something I got in the email the other day:

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:


Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care
to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A
president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for
your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can
tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Feel free to pass this on.
If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck
with Bush for 4 more years.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

[Franc28]

jacopo7531 said:

No, we're not.

Yes you are.

And don't give lists of stupid things conservatives believe in, without looking at yourselves. If I had to make a list of the dumb things you guys believe, I'd be here all day.

- Innocent people are protected by taking away their best means of defense.
- Putting health care in the hands of inefficient bureaucracies will make it better.
- Kyoto Treaty is great. We should sacrifice dozens of thousands of jobs, crippling the technological advances that permitted us to reduce pollution in the first place, in order to ensure a fraction of a degree celsius is saved in the future.
- We are all bound by a social contract that we never signed or agreed to. That is properly called "mafia protection", not a "contract". Liberals don't know what a lot of words mean.
- We must help third-world countries by denying them all the good jobs brought about by globalization, and a more efficient agricultural base with GM foods. In short, we help people by keeping other people from trading with them.
- We should permit gays to get in on the state's and religion's grip on social structures, which makes single people inferior and married people receive hundreds of financial and social benefits.
- The liberal solution to environmental problems is to give land to bureaucrats, who don't give a damn about it, and a forest management service that creates devastating forest fires, thanks to a greenie-oriented public policy.
- More taxation, more tarriffs and more regulations on trade makes for a better economy, despite worldwide data that proves that more economic freedom makes for a healthier economy.
- Other animals have rights, too. Never mind that this is based on no rational public policy whatsoever, and would mean making predation illegal, since the right to life is the most fundamental right.

Need I go on. Liberals are just as dumb. All government-lovers hate progress and hate the individual.

[pieisgood]

Franc28 said:

Yes you are.

Sorry, jacopo, but I think Franc's superior logic is dominating this argument. Better give it up.

Franc28 said:

And don't give lists of stupid things conservatives believe in, without looking at yourselves. If I had to make a list of the dumb things you guys believe, I'd be here all day.

- Innocent people are protected by taking away their best means of defense.
- Putting health care in the hands of inefficient bureaucracies will make it better.
- Kyoto Treaty is great. We should sacrifice dozens of thousands of jobs, crippling the technological advances that permitted us to reduce pollution in the first place, in order to ensure a fraction of a degree celsius is saved in the future.
- We are all bound by a social contract that we never signed or agreed to. That is properly called "mafia protection", not a "contract". Liberals don't know what a lot of words mean.
- We must help third-world countries by denying them all the good jobs brought about by globalization, and a more efficient agricultural base with GM foods. In short, we help people by keeping other people from trading with them.
- We should permit gays to get in on the state's and religion's grip on social structures, which makes single people inferior and married people receive hundreds of financial and social benefits.
- The liberal solution to environmental problems is to give land to bureaucrats, who don't give a damn about it, and a forest management service that creates devastating forest fires, thanks to a greenie-oriented public policy.
- More taxation, more tarriffs and more regulations on trade makes for a better economy, despite worldwide data that proves that more economic freedom makes for a healthier economy.
- Other animals have rights, too. Never mind that this is based on no rational public policy whatsoever, and would mean making predation illegal, since the right to life is the most fundamental right.

Need I go on. Liberals are just as dumb. All government-lovers hate progress and hate the individual.

uhhh, it was a joke, Franc....

[BaalShemRa]

"Yes "
"No "
"Yes! "
"No! "
"Yes!! "
"No!! "
"Yes!!! "
"No!!! "
"Yes!!!! "
"No!!!! "
"Yes!!!!!"
"Well, I hadn't seen it that way. I guess so."

[Griffey]

Franc, your generalizations are really starting to get on my nerves.

Not every American falls neatly into either "conservative" or "liberal" categories, believe it or not. They are the only two parties that ever get elected anymore, but amazingly there are people other than elected politicians who are bright enough to make up their own damn minds instead of adhering strictly to party policy.

[Franc28]

Anyone who thinks Americans are not the most warring and violent people on Earth has never taken a history class or read crime statistics. The US is the country with the most proportion of its people in jail or prison, and has extremely high homicide rates for a civilized country. The US is the only non-totalitarist country that started such a great number of wars.

[AuntieSocial]

Franc28 said:

Anyone who thinks Americans are not the most warring and violent people on Earth has never taken a history class or read crime statistics.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement. I would say that the British have had a particularly bloody history, as well. Actually, many of the European countries have a long history steeped in violence and bloodshed.

I'm not saying that the US hasn't had a violent history (especially considering the violent nature in which it gained it's independence), but I wouldn't go as far as to say they have had the MOST violent.

The US is the country with the most proportion of its people in jail or prison, and has extremely high homicide rates for a civilized country.

The US also has a lot of people in their prisons for minor drug-related offences (i.e. possession for personal use) and property offences (insider trading and non-violent B&Es). The US seems to favour incarceration for many of its social problems. Pointing to the crime statistics doesn't really reflect an inherently violent nature of the population, in my opinion.

Yes, the US does have the most homicides (per capita) out of the "civilized countries", however, the spread is not really that significant a number. On another note, I would consider Mexico and Taiwan to be "civilized countries", yet they have higher homicide rates than the USA. What is your definition of a "civilized country"?

World Health Organization, 1989
Gun Site
Crime in the United States, 2002, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports - shows that the number of homicides appears to be on the decline, back to 1960s statistical levels

The US is the only non-totalitarist country that started such a great number of wars.

England, Spain, France, Germany (started the First World War while not being a totalitarian government, which gave rise to the totalitarian regime which started the Second World War).

Let's look at the wars that the US was involved in, shall we? Red denotes a war that was started by the USA

[/li][li]Revolutionary War (1775-1783) - started by separtists - chalk that one up to the US
[/li][li]War of 1812 (1812-1815) - The American people were angered when they were caught in the middle of the war between France and England. Both the British and French fleets captured American trade ships destined for Europe. In addition, it is said that the British were supplying the Amer-Indians with arms which were used against the American people. The American people held a vote (Madison wasn't sure if he should declare war) and the people voted for war. Although the American people did declare war on Britain, I think there are very strong mitigating circumstances which put the cause (at least partially) in the lap of Britain.[/color]
[/li][li]Mexican War (1846-1848) - started by the Mexican province of Texas (Texas Revolution of 1835-1836) started the entire ordeal. The US annexed Texas after it gained independence from Mexico and Mexico attached US troops along the southern border of Texas in 1846)
[/li][li]Civil War (1861-1865) - many countries have experienced a civil war, this is not peculiar to the American history - obviously it is a no-brainer that this was initiated by Americans, as both sides in the conflict were american
[/li][li]Spanish/American War (1898) - the US interceded in a conflict between Cuba and Spain (quest for independence by Cuba from Spain). This resulted in a brief conflict between Spain and the USA.[/color]
[/li][li]World War I (1917-1918) - started by Germany
[/li][li]World War II (1941-1945) - started by Germany
[/li][li]"Cold War" (1945-1991) - lack of agreement between the USA, UK, France and the USSR over the reunification of Germany started the cold war. The space race and nuclear weapon development further escalated the conflict between the USA and Britain on one side, and the USSR on the other. This was really more of a 'conflict' than it was a war, as it never (thankfully) escalated into an armed combat. It was more a battle of wills. It is difficult to pinpoint a country that was at the root of the conflict (other than Germany by causing WWII). The USA, Britain and the USSR were all heavily involved.
[/li][li]Korea (1950-1953) - UN initative - escalated by the US crossing the 38th parallel
[/li][li]Viet Nam (1964-1972) - started by Vietnamese seeking independence from France
[/li][li]Afghanistan (1979-1982) - US backed the Afghanies after the Russians invaded Afghanistan - started by the USSR, ended in a civil war in Afghanistan
[/li][li]Gulf War (1990-1991) - started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
[/li][li]"War on Terrorism" (2001-??) - the terrorist attack on September 11 prompted this NATO initiative
[/li][li]Iraq War (2003-??) - started by the US (note that one of my two choices (Briatin and Spain) for "most violent history" is also involved in this one)

Although both of my choices have been monarchies for most of their history, there were few monarches that attempted to declare an absolute monarchy (i.e. divine right to be ruler, as well as the birthright). I, personally, would not classify the monarch system as a totalitarianist system as the monarchy was often coupled with a feudal distribution of rule, extending the authority to regional respresentatives which operated with a certain level of autonomy from the monarch.

[ccg111777]

In my opinion that was the Civil War. And we may be headed for another one soon I might add.

Revolutionary War: we were the one who separated, the british invaded our shores, and they were over-taxing us.

War of 1812: France was our ally then, so we came to their aid, we didn't start this one either. That's just what friends do. Though they seem to have forgotten this now.

Spanish American War: You just said Cuba started it.

The Iraq War: Saddam was a corrupt leader we gave him too many chances, and he didn't change. It's his fault.

[pieisgood]

Revolutionary war-- You're saying that we caused it, but wasn't our fault? We still caused it, though, and that's what counts.

Spanish/American war-- The initial war was fought between cuba and spain was initiated by cuba, but the Americans initiated the Spanish/American conflict. That's being considered a seperate war.

War of 1812-- The US declared war based on a seperate conflict. We declared war first.

War in Iraq-- It's Sadaam's fault? We initiated the war either way.

[ccg111777]

War results from many factors. You can't just point to one thing and say, "that, right there that was the reason."

The main reason for why people go to war is because it is in the nature of all of us. Animals kill each other, we are all animals and we still have that instinct. War has always happened and it will continue. That is just the way the world is. The only reason The United States gets involved in so many wars is because. we are a superpower, and we are not too scared to get involved in these conflicts. We are also pressured into getting invovled in some of these conflicts. Ultimately the world seems to have us some responsibility in some of these confilicts because the UN can't handle them all. We may not be more powerful than all of Europe and the other major countries conbined, but we are more equipped in many cases to deal confilct, because we have more resources than the UN. But we need to fight only the wars we want to fight, not the one the world wants us to fight.I pay taxes to this country not to the world. War has its benefits, and it has its costs, when the benefit s outweighs the cost then we should go to war.

[AuntieSocial]

I'm a little confused here ... in defending the Revolutionary War, ccg111777, you claim that the Americans were not responsible as the British invaded the American lands (you are forgetting that the colonies were precisely that, British colonies) yet, in the Spanish/American war you pin the blame on Cuba, who was also seeking independance from the country that held them as a colony. Why is it correct, in your opinion, for the Americans to seek independance, you you do not grant the same rights to the Cubans?

Also, pieisgood is correct, there was no need for the Americans to become involved in the unrest between Spain and their colony. They chose to start a separate action against Spain.

pieisgood is also correct that the matter of my post was the initial causes. I was not saying that they were with or without justification, I was merely recounting the historically accepted causes of the major conflicts involving the U.S.A.