Debate Topic of the Week : Iraq
Here's the question; Was it right to invade Iraq?
My stance is this. It was absolutely the right thing to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. He is a murderous madman with dreams of conquest in the mold of Hitler and Stalin. On the other hand, the timng was absolutely wrong. We needed to finish our work in Afghanistan first and not spread our military out so thin. It also would have given us the flexibility to take on more imminent threats first like Iran or Syria, both of whom have ben actively sponsoring terrorism since before we invaded Iraq, and have been emboldened by our preoccupation in Iraq. Put simply, they think they are safe to do anything they please as long as they continue to foment violence in Iraq to keep us occupied. It might have been better to start in Syria, then sweep through Iraq and into Iran. That way we would only be dealing with one hostile border at a time rather than the two we have right now.
What is your position?
My stance is this. It was absolutely the right thing to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. He is a murderous madman with dreams of conquest in the mold of Hitler and Stalin. On the other hand, the timng was absolutely wrong. We needed to finish our work in Afghanistan first and not spread our military out so thin. It also would have given us the flexibility to take on more imminent threats first like Iran or Syria, both of whom have ben actively sponsoring terrorism since before we invaded Iraq, and have been emboldened by our preoccupation in Iraq. Put simply, they think they are safe to do anything they please as long as they continue to foment violence in Iraq to keep us occupied. It might have been better to start in Syria, then sweep through Iraq and into Iran. That way we would only be dealing with one hostile border at a time rather than the two we have right now.
What is your position?
posted by Daniel Levesque at
8:40 AM
17 Comments:
A few honest questions:
Let's suppose you're right, Saddam was a madman that needed to be stopped.
1. Are we going to send a military in to stop each and every leader who is killing people (Sudan, China, Cuba, Rwanda, Phillipines, Liberia, Colombia, USA, etc, etc...)?
2. Who's going to pay for this?
3. Who's going to decide which rogue countries we will invade and in what order?
By
Dan Trabue, at 10:47 AM
daniel...i agree so much with you! aand then after we got done sweeping iran, we could've gone on to north korea, because i think he's on to be concerned about now!
BoUnCeS!! LibbY!
By
Libby, at 11:13 AM
In answer to your questions:
1: of course not! Some can be toppled through local insurrections. Others can be bought of office. Others can simply be crushed under economic might the way we did the Soviet Union. The thing is to find the best way and use it.
2: It would be nice if the UN got off its worthless behind and contributed something so the American taxpayer didn't have to foot al the bill. Oh wait, we pay most of the UN fees anyway. How about we quit paying the UN and use that money for something that will actually do some good.
3: Since we are concerned with rogue countries that are OUR enemies then our government is who should decide who, when, and if.
Also, the US liberating an opressed people while taking out one of our enemies does NOT put us on the same level as Sudan, Cuba, China, etc. who are busy killing thiew=r own people.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 12:58 PM
Ooh I want to answer Dan's questions too!
1. If they pose a threat to our domestic tranquility, then yes, we should pursue military action. Next.
2. From the looks of it, the American taxpayer and there's not much any of us can do about it either.
3. We'll take appropriate military action against those nations who pose the greatest threat to our domestic tranquility in that order.
Now onto the question originally posed: was it right to invade Iraq? Really, it's hard to say. Based on the original evidence presented, I'd say we did the right thing. Hussein posed a threat to the American way of life. It was well known that he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction as Clinton and Kerry both pointed out themselves along with other prominent Dems:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The list goes on and on and on. In my opinion, we were justified in invading Iraq. Now what we must focus on is winning the war.
By
RobChandler, at 4:58 PM
So, if it's up to each county to decide who is a threat, then another country - Iran, for instance - would be correct in invading or bombing us if they thought we were a threat?
By
Dan Trabue, at 8:01 PM
We have not been exporting government sponsored terrorists around the world, Iran has. At the same what you have stated is exactly correct. Every sovereign nation has a right to protect its existence and the lives of its people. If Iran wanted to attack us for this reason they could, oh, wait a minute, they already are. THEY ARE SENDING TERRORISTS TO PLACES WHERE AMERICANS ARE SO THEY CAN KILL US! If this isn't an overt act of war then what is?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 8:53 PM
What's ironic is that, though I was opposed to the invasion from the get-go, I have to admit that it could have worked, if only.
If rather than being fired, Jay Garner had been allowed to hold elections within 90 days of the regime's collapse, it could have worked.
If we'd left the reconstruction in the hands of military commanders paying Iraqis to rebuild their own neighborhoods, rather than US companies importing cheaper immigrant labor, it could have worked.
If we'd tasked the Iraqi army with peacekeeping rather than laying off half a million able-bodied fighters and having our own troops occupy Baghdad . . . at least they would have known the culture, and the language, and the bad seeds among them couldn't have been much worse than the problems we're dealing with now. And our troops could maybe have secured the borders rather than trying to subdue the populace.
Unfortunately, the invasion was all about getting control over the economy and resources, so we didn't do the things that could have worked. We fired Garner, and brought in Bechtel, and put ourselves in the position of occupying a country whose people we don't really even understand, and presumed to dictate to them the terms by which they'll be allowed to have their own government again.
Which is exactly why I was opposed to the invasion from the get-go.
But I have to admit, it could have worked.
By
catastrophile, at 9:13 PM
You are echoing the complaints of many a conservative who supports the war. Politicians tend to complicate wars with their concerns, soldiers win wars by fighting them the right way as proven by history.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:22 PM
It was the right thing to do.
It is just unfortunate that it had to be.
When Israel and British intelligence say someone has WMD's, it's time to act. (Prob in Syria now).
By
The Conservative UAW Guy, at 1:46 AM
"Who's going to decide which rogue countries we will invade and in what order?"
We're fighting a war against terrorism. I guess you haven't been listening to our President, but any nation that harbors terrorists is on the list.
Had I been in the Oval Office, we would have nuked Afghanistan into molten glass on 9/12/2001, then stated that if the terrorism didn't stop immediately, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be next. And reinstituted Teddy Roosevelt's police for protecting Americans abroad: even look funny at a US citizen and we send in the troops.
By
Anonymous, at 7:57 AM
While I reject the notion that folks in the swamp really believed that Iraq was a threat -- the administration took could and might and turned them into does and will, and the Dems came along for the ride -- there's perfectly valid strategic logic behind going into Iraq.
The primary reason, of course, was because Iraq had been effectively declawed -- not only by inspections, but by more than a decade of sanctions and allied bombing. The effect of that softening-up was easy to see when our troops first rolled into Baghdad.
Iraq is also big and central. Control of the territory gives us borders across which to run destabilization operations into Iran and Syria. Not to mention the fact that having troops in Afghanistan and Iraq puts Iran in a pincer -- Iran, of course, being the real strategic challenge.
So, strategically speaking, going into Iraq first was the right decision. Having that country as a political and military staging platform would make the rest of the region that much easier to deal with. And like I said, it could have worked, if only.
By
catastrophile, at 9:47 AM
The Dems most certainly did come along gor the ride, and many of them voted for the war. It is interesting that there are actually people in the news and at protests claiming the the President went into I raq without the consent of the Congress when the Congress approved the war.
As for the WMDs, well . . . Saddam had used them in the past on multiple occasions. He refused to provide proof of their destruction or to let weapons inspectors into the country, he defied 16 UN resolutions that all promised military repercussions if he did not cooperate. The US simply enforced what those eunuchs at the UN would not.
As for the use of nukes as Right Wing Prof. has suggested, I cannot in good conscience agree with that. Not only would they slaughter vast numbers of innocent civilians, which violates Geneva Convention law, modern nukes would ruin the land around them for many years to come, cutting off access to farmland and oilfields. Mostly though, I do not want to target civillians. Also, we do have rivals in the world who have nukes themselves and might be goaded into using them if we started threatening everyone with them. Our missile defense shield is not complted yet, we cannot afford the risk of even one ICBM coming our way.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:32 AM
My response is way too long, so I've posted it here.
By
catastrophile, at 12:18 PM
Catastrophile makes some interesting points in his linked posting. You should read it.
That said I want to adress the whole assasination plot thing he mentioned. I don't know how credible the assertion that the weapons inspection program was being turned into a plot to assassinate Saddam. What I do know for a fact is that Saddam Tried to kill a US President, Bush Sr. This is an overt act of war on the part of Iraq that we needed to respond to a decade ago. It is also an indisputable fact that Al Queda and Taliban fighters were going into Iraq for sanctuary after we invaded Afghanistan. Aiding the enemy is also an act of war. so while the whole WMD dbate is a very legitimate one the fact remains that we did not need WMDs to justify invading Iraq.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 1:34 PM
Very true -- Saddam was a monster and needed to go. What terrifies me is the prospect that we will be so deeply involved in the political equilibrium that finally emerges in Iraq that withdrawal might never become a realistic option. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but that seems to be where we're headed, and my opinion(!) is that that's the whole point.
So much of this process has been predicated on our continued presence there . . . What kind of strongman will it take to fill the void that the overwhelming power of the US military will leave behind?
As British PM Lloyd George said after WWI: "We shall have to do the same thing all over again in twenty-five years at three times the cost."
By
catastrophile, at 7:46 PM
You may be right about part of the point of invading Iraq may be to maintain a continuous presence there. A friendly democracy in the Middle East that allows us to maintain a permanently garrissoned mid-sized base would be a tremendous strategic advantage in the War on Terror, as well as for any other conflict that draws us in anywhere near that area of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if we close almost all of those bases in Germany and Korea only to open a new on in Iraq. It's also a logical conclusion because we have maintained a continuous military presence in every country we have defeated or liberated in the last hundred years.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 8:47 PM
Yeah, there's a pretty good chance we're in this for the long haul. And if that's the case, things might still get a lot worse before they get much better. How long was South Korea a dictatorship before we got a friendly democracy there?
I don't know. It's so frustrating, because this is the kind of discussion the whole country needs to have, but we're, uh . . . well, "stuck on stupid" seems to fit.
By
catastrophile, at 9:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home