Benefits of war in Iraq

@European cv,

Quote:

I agree with the author of this article The European Courier | Benefits of War in Iraq who points out many genuine benefits of the war in Iraq

.
The end does not justify the means. You can't achieve peace through war, that is lesson that we learned the hard way.
You might gain an imediate result, but they will not hold for long. You must change the ideology of an entire civilization, that is not done solely by outside forces, patience is the key word here. Our influence must be minimal so violence and hatred are not stimulated.

Quote:

I think it is a good thing that US troops stay in Iraq and continue to fight.

These soldiers have family and friend they wish to return to someday, while their enemies wish to die in order to ingress into heaven. You can't threaten with death someone who wishes to die

3 Replies

@markx15,

There are no benefits in the war with Iraq.:eek:

Beware of Neo-Cons trying to spread democracy.:rocketwhore:

1 Reply

@markx15,

The publication this "unbiased" article came from is stated below:

Instytut Sobieskiego - energetyka, gospodarka, podatki, prawo, nowe technologie

Quote:

I'm not sure what your good news is here...

Quote:

Sorry...just not getting your choice of this peice nor the stand you are trying to make for it being positive...just one man's opinion and not really clearly supporting the invasion, IMHO.

0 Replies

@tumbleweed cv,

tumbleweed;7268 wrote:

There are no benefits in the war with Iraq.:eek:

Beware of Neo-Cons trying to spread democracy.:rocketwhore:

Depends on what you call a benefit. Ask an iraqi if he like's drinking clean water, of having electricity for fifteen hours aday instead of two. Having actual working plumbing instead of wading through it in the street. Good thing not too many people thought that when we were fighting Japan and Germany.

1 Reply

@markx15,

markx15;7267 wrote:

.
The end does not justify the means. You can't achieve peace through war, that is lesson that we learned the hard way.
You might gain an imediate result, but they will not hold for long. You must change the ideology of an entire civilization, that is not done solely by outside forces, patience is the key word here. Our influence must be minimal so violence and hatred are not stimulated.

These soldiers have family and friend they wish to return to someday, while their enemies wish to die in order to ingress into heaven. You can't threaten with death someone who wishes to die

I agree to a certain extent. We did not create this war, they did... They killed thousands of innocent on another soil: US. Is that an act of provocation to go to war or what?

I agree to the fact that soldiers need to go back home before those b....s kill more soldiers. But at the same time it is imperative to leave the country with a solid form of governamental structure that will not crumble easy..

UN organization should start to work on this and take some decisions to stabilize Iraq so US soldiers can go back home...

THe fact that Iran is organozing a meeting on Iraq situation it is just what we do no need them to do but UN responsability....

1 Reply

@Sherman cv,

Sherman;7299 wrote:

I agree to a certain extent. We did not create this war, they did... They killed thousands of innocent on another soil: US. Is that an act of provocation to go to war or what?

I agree to the fact that soldiers need to go back home before those b....s kill more soldiers. But at the same time it is imperative to leave the country with a solid form of governamental structure that will not crumble easy..

UN organization should start to work on this and take some decisions to stabilize Iraq so US soldiers can go back home...

THe fact that Iran is organozing a meeting on Iraq situation it is just what we do no need them to do but UN responsability....

Sherman...

IRAQ WASN'T BEHIND 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The middle-east isn't just one group of people who are all alike and all want
the same thing!!!!!!!!!

Al Qaeda, for all intents and purposes a street gang, attacked the U.S.
They're not a country.

The reason they did it? The same reason they've attacked U.S. bases and
ships since the end of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan: to draw the
U.S. into the role the U.S.S.R. was in for that war, which helped bring
the Soviet Union to an end. They, being fundamentalists who have sacrificed
a capacity for reason in exchange for faith that supernatural being interferes
in the daily lives of men, believe that Allah will deliver a similar fate to
the U.S. in roughly the same time.

Did it work? Well, no. The world supported the U.S. overwhelmingly (even
the rulers of Pakistan) which was a different scenario from what the Soviets
faced. Al Qaeda wasn't in the position to strike out at a residing enemy (with
U.S. aide) over a period of years. Afghanistan was "shock and awed," the
Taliban didn't have the support of the Afghan people during the invasion,
so they were easily overrun, and Al Qaeda had little place to go.

Had we stopped there, and worked in that region, using the good will
extended to us by the leaders, we could have made positive changes in
the lives and situations of everyday middle-easterners, and started them on the road away from the culture of Islamic religious subjugation.

But NOOOOOOOO

we played right into Bin Ladens plans, giving him a second change I doubt he even planned on, by being the aggressor in Iraq. Making a mess in a place
that was tenously held together by a lunatic, which seems to be what's
needed there (how else would you describe the people who really hold power
over the militias and groups there, now) and playing into every bit of
negative teaching about us the radical Islamists had ever told their people.

A mistake. A mistake. A mistake.

... and the world is much worse off because of it. ...and there's no easy way
out.

...and my country and your country are more threatened now because of it.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;7298 wrote:

Depends on what you call a benefit. Ask an iraqi if he like's drinking clean water, of having electricity for fifteen hours aday instead of two. Having actual working plumbing instead of wading through it in the street.

Good thing not too many people thought that when we were fighting Japan and Germany.

I don't understand what you're saying in the first part of your statement.

Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits. They have lost a lot because of our actions.

The World has lost a lot because of our actions. Iraq is situated in a historically
important region. Maybe a country 200+ years old can't appreciate what
has been going on there for thousands of years, but some of the first
building ever erected by civilizations were there. Some of the first museums,
filled with treasures, works of art and historical and religious relics were
there. The northern marshes are what you probably refer to as "The Garden
of Eden" in the bible. When the europeans were still crawling around caves
the Persians and Arabs and Ottomans and Turks had advanced civilizations.
Things our civilization and culture are built on top of originated there, and
bits of it had been preserved, and we made a situation where that's been
wrecked in a lot of instances, and that's a crime that history will bite us in
the ass for, eventually. Much of that can't be rebuilt.

If your talking about developments in the past two years, I'm not even
sure you still get it right. Things aren't "business as usual" at the moment.

You should watch a documentary called "Control Room," about Al Jazeera
television. Dismiss it if you like, but watch it for a glimpse into what it was
like to be an Iraqi before, during, and after the invasion.

2 Replies

@oleo,

"Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits. They have lost a lot because of our actions."

Functioning , yes . Normal , no .
Iraq was being plundered by a dictator who raped his country's assets , demeaned its history and culture , killed and degraded its people , and never wanted to arrive into the current century with the rest of the world .
I fail to see how we are responsible for the whole situation . Many members of the UN were and are in favor of invading Iraq in order to change the regime so that Iraq could become a normal nation in the Middle East .
The growth of civilization has always been built on top of previous ones , and Sadaam and his type just refused to allow growth which would bring Iraq's people out of the 9th and 10th century .
How is it that many Muslims and Muslim nations have progressed , yet it is our fault that some have not ? It is radical Islamic fundamentalism that retards growth . When fundamentalism overshadows growth , civilizations suffer .
Fundamentalism caused much of the situation that led to the abandoning of England and Europe by our American forefathers . They escaped ( and sometimes were run out of ) repressive regimes to come here and start a new republic which has grown to be recognized as a world leader in many ways in just over 200 years . Doesn't this strike you as a good thing ? Should we not foster the same efforts in others ?

2 Replies

@oleo,

oleo;7630 wrote:

I don't understand what you're saying in the first part of your statement.

Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits. They have lost a lot because of our actions.

The World has lost a lot because of our actions. Iraq is situated in a historically
important region. Maybe a country 200+ years old can't appreciate what
has been going on there for thousands of years, but some of the first
building ever erected by civilizations were there. Some of the first museums,
filled with treasures, works of art and historical and religious relics were
there. The northern marshes are what you probably refer to as "The Garden
of Eden" in the bible. When the europeans were still crawling around caves
the Persians and Arabs and Ottomans and Turks had advanced civilizations.
Things our civilization and culture are built on top of originated there, and
bits of it had been preserved, and we made a situation where that's been
wrecked in a lot of instances, and that's a crime that history will bite us in
the ass for, eventually. Much of that can't be rebuilt.

If your talking about developments in the past two years, I'm not even
sure you still get it right. Things aren't "business as usual" at the moment.

You should watch a documentary called "Control Room," about Al Jazeera
television. Dismiss it if you like, but watch it for a glimpse into what it was
like to be an Iraqi before, during, and after the invasion.

Quote:

Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits.

Normal? The only functioning part was saddam and his aggression. What we bombed were military targets with little colateral damage. Very percise we were.

Quote:

They have lost a lot because of our actions.

What exactly did they lose? Besides a tyrant.

Quote:

The World has lost a lot because of our actions. Iraq is situated in a historically
important region. Maybe a country 200+ years old can't appreciate what
has been going on there for thousands of years, but some of the first
building ever erected by civilizations were there.

We weren't the one's the blew up ancient relics because they wern't Muslim. I know we all derived from that general area. Alot of the stuff is still there, what the extremist haven't destroyed. Or sold to fund there holy war. I can and do appreciate alot of the things there, but what's there has nothing to do IMO with the people that are there now.

Quote:

Some of the first museums,
filled with treasures, works of art and historical and religious relics were
there. The northern marshes are what you probably refer to as "The Garden
of Eden" in the bible. When the europeans were still crawling around caves
the Persians and Arabs and Ottomans and Turks had advanced civilizations.

ARe they not there now? Did we destroy them? They may of been advanced then but they sure are not now, not compared to us. They would like to return to those times and have us under there rule, are you going to allow this in the name of heritage? Are you willing to give up all that you have to appease them?

Quote:

Things our civilization and culture are built on top of originated there, and
bits of it had been preserved, and we made a situation where that's been
wrecked in a lot of instances, and that's a crime that history will bite us in
the ass for, eventually. Much of that can't be rebuilt.

That's called progress. You make it sound like we are the destroyer's of all sacred in Irag, IMO were the opposite, what have we given them if not a chance to change it to what the people really want? Not a dictator, not a terrorist orginization but self rule. If they chose otherwise that is up to them. They have made many choices up till now, they have had elections they have a Constitution and the majority is trying to make a life but they have these pesky terrorists hell bent on none of it happening.

Quote:

If your talking about developments in the past two years, I'm not even
sure you still get it right. Things aren't "business as usual" at the moment.

I don't have to get it right they do! For business to be usual, girls would get to go to school, women wouldn't vote, No outside TV, cell phones would be exclusive to terrorists. That is business as usual pre Saddam. Are you say you want them to revert?

Quote:

You should watch a documentary called "Control Room," about Al Jazeera
television. Dismiss it if you like, but watch it for a glimpse into what it was
like to be an Iraqi before, during, and after the invasion.

I read plenty of Iraqi blogs some for and against us. My wife works for the National Guard. I'm penpal with many soldiers who really see what's going on. Al Jazeera only covers what they like. Which IMO isn't the truth.

1 Reply

@Curmudgeon,

Curmudgeon;7631 wrote:

"Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits. They have lost a lot because of our actions."

Functioning , yes . Normal , no .
Iraq was being plundered by a dictator who raped his country's assets ,

But who put Saddam in power... was it the CIA? Oh! wow... that's quite the revelation!

0 Replies

@European cv,

CIA, now your reaching. Unless you have something more then that?

0 Replies

@European cv,

No matter who put him in power , he fell victim to the sense of power and was corrupted further , and killed and tortured by proxy his own cirizens .

0 Replies

@Curmudgeon,

Curmudgeon;7631 wrote:

"Iraq was a functioning, normal nation in most places BEFORE we invaded it,
and bombed it to bits. They have lost a lot because of our actions."

Functioning , yes . Normal , no .
Iraq was being plundered by a dictator who raped his country's assets , demeaned its history and culture , killed and degraded its people , and never wanted to arrive into the current century with the rest of the world .
I fail to see how we are responsible for the whole situation . Many members of the UN were and are in favor of invading Iraq in order to change the regime so that Iraq could become a normal nation in the Middle East .
The growth of civilization has always been built on top of previous ones , and Sadaam and his type just refused to allow growth which would bring Iraq's people out of the 9th and 10th century .
How is it that many Muslims and Muslim nations have progressed , yet it is our fault that some have not ? It is radical Islamic fundamentalism that retards growth . When fundamentalism overshadows growth , civilizations suffer .
Fundamentalism caused much of the situation that led to the abandoning of England and Europe by our American forefathers . They escaped ( and sometimes were run out of ) repressive regimes to come here and start a new republic which has grown to be recognized as a world leader in many ways in just over 200 years . Doesn't this strike you as a good thing ? Should we not foster the same efforts in others ?

I'm NOT pro-Hussein, but you don't seem to understand he was a
progressive secular dictator. Like the Arab dictators and Autocrats of old
(The Shah, Qadaffi, etc.) he wanted power and Arab states that were
a modernized match for the west, in terms of global influence. Many
Iraqis (the ones in his party, or who kept their mouths shut and went along)
lived very westernized lives.

He was nuts, evil, and needed to be taken out someway at sometime.
We didn't go about it correctly. We didn't have a realistic picture of the
state of Iraqi society ("hey, get rid of him and it will be just like America").
People who have the mentality of slaves will be slaves to someone. No
Saddam, so then they base their constitution on Islamic law.

Read these essays by Francis Fukuyama, the former neo-con who was responsible
for popularizing that philosophy that you mention at the end of your post.
He's logically updated it, and he's right. Yes, we have a moral responsibility,
I believe, to promote democracy and freedom around the world. It isn't possible to simply remove a leader from a populace that has an underdeveloped
sense of individualistic identity and responibilty and expect them to act
like the self-determining people we are in this country.

http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=565
http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=572
http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=566

Hell, I like the guy but if you dig around Sherman, a Brit, longs for the
days of communism and the cold war because it was "safer" in his opinion,
and he shocked me by saying he'd rather live under communism than have
freedom but danger.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Normal? The only functioning part was saddam and his aggression. What
we bombed were military targets with little colateral damage. Very percise
we were.

Bullshit, and that comes from Marines I know. Would you volunteer to be in the house next door to one a smart bomb targets? We didn't know what we
were bombing half the time.

Watch Control Room, we bomb the Al Jazeera building with one of their reporters doing a story live on the roof and kill him. The plane flies by
twice then bombs for no apparent reason, and the U.S. was supplied with
the coordinates of that building as a press office that shouldn't be targeted.

What exactly did they lose? Besides a tyrant.

Their normal, everyday lives, which they had. Also, most of the country lies
in rubble now.

We weren't the one's the blew up ancient relics because they wern't Muslim. I know we all derived from that general area. Alot of the stuff is still there, what the extremist haven't destroyed. Or sold to fund there holy war. I can and do appreciate alot of the things there, but what's there has nothing to do IMO with the people that are there now.

Hussein wasn't an extremist muslim. The Ba'athist were secular. He was
just a dictator who wanted enormous power. He wasn't a fundamentalist.
Wrong country and group of people.

ARe they not there now? Did we destroy them? They may of been advanced then but they sure are not now, not compared to us. They would like to return to those times and have us under there rule, are you going to allow this in the name of heritage? Are you willing to give up all that you have to appease them?

THOSE AREN'T THE IRAQI'S!!!!!!!!

GOD DAMN IT!!!! YOU PEOPLE ARE DENSE!!!!

IRAQ WASN'T AL QAEDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY'RE THERE NOW, THANKS TO US CREATING A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD
PROSPER.

That's called progress. You make it sound like we are the destroyer's of all sacred in Irag, IMO were the opposite, what have we given them if not a chance to change it to what the people really want? Not a dictator, not a terrorist orginization but self rule. If they chose otherwise that is up to them. They have made many choices up till now, they have had elections they have a Constitution and the majority is trying to make a life but they have these pesky terrorists hell bent on none of it happening.

We created an unstable environment. I guess the pesky terrorists are dividing
the country into three sections all on their own.

You, like most neo-cons, seem to have a delusionary view of what's going
on. Secterian violence is just something CNN is lying about, right?

I don't have to get it right they do! For business to be usual, girls would get to go to school, women wouldn't vote, No outside TV, cell phones would be exclusive to terrorists. That is business as usual pre Saddam. Are you say you want them to revert?

That wasn't the case, from people I know who lived in Iraq. Seriously, women had it better there than anywhere else in the middle-east. I know
Iraqi-Americans, and they hated Hussein, but their lives there were pretty
westernized, and as long as they did nothing to challenge him they lived well.

You're describing Saudi Arabia somewhat, though, the home of the biggest
anti-U.S. sentiment, and they're considered our great ally.

I read plenty of Iraqi blogs some for and against us. My wife works for the National Guard. I'm penpal with many soldiers who really see what's going on. Al Jazeera only covers what they like. Which IMO isn't the truth.

You don't think our media doesn't do that, both ways. Watch the doc, you
can call bullshit on it after you see it, but don't you like being equiped to
argue your points with people like me. Very Happy

0 Replies

Benefits of war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know