Why are we really there?

[1stFlight]

Raise your hand if you truely believe that our going to war in Iraq, is all about freeing the Iraqi...

[UDawg]

We are there for US security. The freedom the Iraqi people experience is a wonderfull side affect.

[vampireuk]

Wait a minute why are we there then?:D :p

[jnd3]

Not reasons why we're there:

1) Imperialism/hegemony/colonialism.
2) Oil.
3) Hatred of Islam.

Reasons we're there:

1) National security.
2) World security.

As UDawg mentioned, freedom is simply a lovely side effect. Hopefully it'll spread throughout the Middle East, and indeed the world.

Cheers,
JND

[netviper13]

I think it's sad that our main objective would not have been the freedom of the Iraqi people. Talking about it as nothing but a "side effect" puts freedom in an insignificant place.

Remember that without freedom we would have much, much more to worry about than terrorism.

I'm happy for the freedom the Iraqi people will find, but saddened and upset at how many lost their lives in the war. That's precisely why I was against the war, because no matter how many people would be free after, many would die in the process.

[Jamin]

True, in a perfect world, freedom should be our main goal. (Granted, in a perfect world, freedom would already be a given anyway.)

But since we're not in a perfect world, selfish, self-protective interests are probably the real reason. And we keep swearing by freedom because it helps make us look better. We're just over there taking out a threat to us and to the rest of the world... But since the rest of the world seems to disagree with our means to an end, we're swearing up and down that we're doing it to give the Iraqi people freedom. It sounds less tyrannical that way.

---Jamin

[UDawg]

Originally posted by netviper13
I think it's sad that our main objective would not have been the freedom of the Iraqi people. Talking about it as nothing but a "side effect" puts freedom in an insignificant place.

You are completely wrong on this point. Our security ensures our freedom. The fact that we fight for our freedom almost always produces a "wonderfull side effect" called freedom in the area we fought in. Examples: France, Italy, Iraq, Japan, S. Korea. There have been places where we fought that haven't been successful but that is because we did not finish our fight. This brings me to the point that we need to follow through with our fights and not cut and run like we did in Viet Nahm, Semolia.

[StealthHawk]

what a nice unbiased poll you have there.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=100558

[intercede007]

Originally posted by netviper13
That's precisely why I was against the war, because no matter how many people would be free after, many would die in the process.


Freedom is never free. Remember that.

Would you rather that 4,556* men hadn't died for our freedom now from the first shots in 1775 until the brits evacuated New York in 1783?

Or how about the 291,557* that died to oust Hitler from Europe?



*American Casualties

[UDawg]

That's precisely why I was against the war, because no matter how many people would be free after, many would die in the process.

You just said the millions that will be free are not worth about less than a thousand that died. That is very twisted logic.

I am sure that at least 500 people were murdered in the time we were debating resolution 1441 in Iraq by Saddam. They died slaves. At leas the 500 or so died during liberation and had a chance at freedom.

When are we going to stop being affraid in this country of doing the right thing or things that will be tough?

[netviper13]

The point I was making is that peaceful or more covert military action could have liberated the Iraqi people without killing them. When all means to avoid war have not been exhausted, it does not meet the requirements of a just war.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

ask any Iraqi exile in America if this was a just war;)

[netviper13]

I'd like to be able to ask the dead civillians if they're glad the Americans came to "liberate" them.

I'm happy for the liberated Iraqis, really I am, but it's still tragic so many of the innocent had to die in the process.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

I'd like for you to have that opportunity, I guess it is the only way for you guys to be convinced. But, it is impossible, so it is impossible for you guys to ever see that this war is just.

[netviper13]

I know this war is not just, because it doesn't meet a single principle of the just war theory. The award-winning philosophy professor at our university here agrees, in fact he's written several editorials explaining just why exactly this police action is totally and completely unjust. He's not a pacifist by any means either.

[intercede007]

Originally posted by netviper13
The point I was making is that peaceful or more covert military action could have liberated the Iraqi people without killing them. When all means to avoid war have not been exhausted, it does not meet the requirements of a just war.


You use a scalpel to cut an incision, but you have to pull out the saw to get to the heart.

Special Operations units are Tactical. They can't occupy and they can't do any rear-gaurd action. Meaning that once the objective is complete, they leave the mission area.

In an operation like this, with strategic targets and a strategic objective, it would be fruitless to fight it in a tactical sense. You might take a target, but you have no hope of protecting it.

Special Operations forces are not there to go up against large forces, mechanized or otherwise. Thats not what they do. That's what the infantry is for, and thats the problem we had in Vietnam. We came, we conquered, we pressed on. There was no rear echelon, every unit was the front line. You can't win a war that way any more then a surgeon can get through the sternum with a knife.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Franky, I could care less about what your philosophy professor(leftist, I know) thinks.

Spending years and years getting an education for what? just to go to waste because your professor decides to have a closed mind.

Many(if not all) of these guys writing these "Editorials" explaining why this war is unjust have no background, and have no researched anything, otherwise they'd see Saddam's horrors and be convinced otherwise. All opinion that they pass off as "fact".

What exactly are these principles for a just war?

I hope your proffesor didn't come up with these too :lol:

[netviper13]

No the special forces could not have done what the infantry did, but they could have easily destabilized the government in the same way our grunts did. We've assasinated people before, and we could easily do it again.

Basically what we were/are attempting to do is collapse the current government, mop up, and then replace it with a puppet democracy. This bombing the crap out of everything that moves (my name for 'shock and awe') didn't have to happen. We had diplomacy, surprise, and damn good spec-ops troops, but instead chose the safer-for-us, but more-dangerous-for-them approach.

[eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu, you seriously have never heard of Just-War Theory? It's basically what philosophers have used to view military conflicts for the past 50 years or so. It lays down certain criteria for a war to be just; just one of those being that a massive operation should always be defensive, unless it is guaranteed there is an imminent threat from the enemy, which there wasn't with Iraq.

The professor is neither left-wing, nor closed minded. He has been a philosophy professor for around 20 years, and definitely knows his stuff. He is actually fairly conservative in his beliefs, as he and his family are good Christians, and he's also made it quite clear why he objects on a religious level as well.

Protests on the level that were seen with this Iraqi conflict have never been seen before. Not even the Vietnam war caused so much international controversy. I think the must unjust part of this war is completely ignoring the one governing body established to prevent renegade power-nations from taking over the planet. I'm sorry, but even the most powerful country in the world still has to answer to someone. Ignoring the UN may very well be the death of the US, or at least international relations as we know them.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

umm.. spec ops do alot of great stuff, but they have their limits, and there isn't exactly a large number of them to just deploy them all the time.

We destabilized the government the moment our troops set sail for Kuwait, that didn't do anything. These types of governments thrive on instability and chaos.

Only way to deal with them is to tear them apart and destroy the entity.

Anyways, no need to argue now, its winding down :lol:

[intercede007]

Originally posted by netviper13
I know this war is not just, because it doesn't meet a single principle of the just war theory. The award-winning philosophy professor at our university here agrees, in fact he's written several editorials explaining just why exactly this police action is totally and completely unjust. He's not a pacifist by any means either.

What award did he win? What university?

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

Liberation of the Iraqi People, Removal of a murderous Dictator, Removal and prevention of distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Regional Stability, A decrease in the US presence in the region on a time-table, and the Security of the United States of America.

Having Just Cause...Check

President of the United States, with the consent of Congress and the British government moving forward with the operation.

Declared by the proper authorith..Check

Possessing right intention...See Having just cause

Having a resonable chance of success...Thats self-critiquing.

We came, we saw, we set them free.

End being proportional to the means used...Check

I'm satisfied.

[intercede007]

Originally posted by netviper13
No the special forces could not have done what the infantry did, but they could have easily destabilized the government in the same way our grunts did. We've assasinated people before, and we could easily do it again.


Wow.

I'd think assassinating a sovreign nations leader would be against your rhetoric?

[netviper13]

I'd rather have a leader assasinated than have civillians killed.

The professor is at Fort Hays State University, not exactly Harvard but then again it did beat MIT at two technology competitions recently. I don't remember the award he received.

I wish I'd saved the newspaper article, because I could post it.

My biggest issue with the whole thing so far has been us saying screw the world. You just don't do that. The United States has used the UN for its own means so many times, and the one time someone has the balls to make a stand we all of a sudden no longer need it.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by netviper13
This bombing the crap out of everything that moves (my name for 'shock and awe') didn't have to happen.

Really? exactly when did we go around bombing everything that moved? I hope you didn't get that info from Al Jazeera :lol:

We had diplomacy

yeah, finally ran out after 12 years, long enough for diplomacy to run its course.

surprise, and damn good spec-ops troops, but instead chose the safer-for-us, but more-dangerous-for-them approach.

Riiiight... how did we go about this?

[eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu, you seriously have never heard of Just-War Theory? It's basically what philosophers have used to view military conflicts for the past 50 years or so. It lays down certain criteria for a war to be just; just one of those being that a massive operation should always be defensive, unless it is guaranteed there is an imminent threat from the enemy, which there wasn't with Iraq.

Never cared for philosophy so no, never heard about it. From your explanation it just seems like a bunch of wishful thoughts and impossible to satisfy requirements set forth by leftists(in the closet or out) pushing their own agenda onto their students.

The professor is neither left-wing, nor closed minded. He has been a philosophy professor for around 20 years, and definitely knows his stuff. He is actually fairly conservative in his beliefs, as he and his family are good Christians, and he's also made it quite clear why he objects on a religious level as well.

I know many christian democrats, just because someone is christian it doesn't mean that they are conservative.

Protests on the level that were seen with this Iraqi conflict have never been seen before. Not even the Vietnam war caused so much international controversy. I think the must unjust part of this war is completely ignoring the one governing body established to prevent renegade power-nations from taking over the planet. I'm sorry, but even the most powerful country in the world still has to answer to someone. Ignoring the UN may very well be the death of the US, or at least international relations as we know them.

hey, when that body becomes unrealistic and impossible to work with, its time to take matters into your own hands. The UN doesn't govern the world, ask France, taking us into a war with them in the 90's without UN backing or going it alone in other regions of the world without seeking UN resolutions. Nobody is making a fuss out of that, how did their actions fit your criteria? Looks like a double standard.

We do not need countries that will not work with us and are out to "humble" our country. We do not need an international body which becomes the vehicle for this very attempt, so, like canada, we can always get "new" friends.

[intercede007]

We didnt' say screw the world. In fact, quite a bit of it went along for the ride.

Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Britain
Colombia
The Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
The Netherlands
Nicaragua
the Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uzbekistan

To name a few. Lots of former eastern-bloc countries in that list.

The UN bucked us for Oil, and that's a fact. France gets a large amount of the oil it refines from Iraq using the Oil-for-food program. They send over a few bags of corn, Iraq sends them a few barrels of oil.

Thing is, the Iraqi people are starving. Was France really sending food, or was Saddam not distributing the food?

We've found chemical weapons. We've found jails full of children. Yeah, I'd say the UN, their policies and their inspectors did a FANTASTIC job.