this is why the war in iraq might be right (i think)?

Question

I certainly feel that all the dissent on Bush's war in iraq is well needed and indeed the war has caused civil war in iraq. the sunnis killed over 200 people of their own people in one attack last month and 63 just yesterday.

but i think that fact that such a large part of the population is so evil hearted by their own religion to murder their own people, because it is easier to do that than attack our armed troops, says something about the third world. They don't know better and wiil always do what is worst for their own people because they need to be guided and the people who are erroneous minded in those country need to be killed for the sake of the peace of those country.

I don't think this argument alone completly justifies the war, makes it "right"
The truth is the situation in the middle east is only going to get worse before it ever gets better.
And a hundred years before it ever starts to get any better, every middle eastern nation will have access to nuclear bombs

all i am saying is that maybe, just MAYBE, in twenty or twenty-five years from now, when iraq is the most wealthy, safe and the best place to live in the entire middle east, i think that all the surrounding counties wouldn’t be able to deny that is was because of it becoming a democracy.

Of course, that is an insanely liberal viewpoint, to think that America should lose hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our own lives to accomplish that task. In a way it’s not out problem. As soon as we were to have any real threats of a nuclear attack on ourselves, we could literally destroy the entirety of any nation that might want to use one against us.

I guess my question is this
If bush would have never said that there were nuclear weapons there, and he only said we need a war, to make it a democracy for the benefit of all surrounding countries, would you have been on board? and please state your political orientation as well (republican, democrat.

Answer 1

Saudi Arabia funds one evil part, and Iran funds the other evil part. The "EVIL" parts were under control with Saddam, of course except for his own evil.

Answer 2

I can appreciate you reasoning and even though we disagree i could have a civil conversation with you about this... and that's what we need more of on here.... I am a democrat.. and though i support the war on terror, i feel the war in Iraq can never be justified because the people of Iraq didn't choose the course of freedom.. we told them it was going to happen.... now the cat is out of the bag and we have to make the best of a very very bad situation... and only time will tell what the best course is... much like the killing off of so many native american tribes was a horrible act... but did it contribute to our nations strength and ability to ward off the Nazi's in WW II? there aren't any real answers to questions like that because we can't change the past. you have to take what has happened and do the best you can with it.. and all i can say for sure is that America can do a better job than they are doing right now in many issues, including Iraq.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. War should always be a last resort and in Iraq it was not.

To make such statements about the third world is unfair as are the ones you make about Islam. Do you realize that much of Western Civilization would have been lost during the Dark ages were it not for Islam? They preserved it while we destroyed it. Do you have any idea how many people Christians have killed in the name of God?

The people of Iraq are in survival mode now. Just as you would be if your nation was destroyed and a foreign army occupied your land. Just imagine for a moment what you would do if the Chinese occupied America and our nation was ruined from war. If you children had died in the conflict. What would you do? Would it be so different?

Islam today is finding itself but it does not make one side right or the other wrong. Those fighting the civil war are fighting for the scraps of a nation destroyed. Iraq will not be a Democracy. All we have done is increased the power of Iran to pilot the future of the nation in a theocratic fashion.

George Bush said in a debate in 2000 that we should never engage in a conflict without a clear exit strategy. I completely agree. Too bad he neglected his own words.

Thank you for at least putting thought into your question. I agree with the above comment. While I find great falacy in your logic I could have a conversation with you and I appreciate that.

I am a liberal and proud of it.

Answer 4

The entire region is full of evil. It is their religion. I support President Bush and his reasoning behind the war, and I actually believe it is going much better then the propagandists are presenting. Every soldier killed or wounded is a tragedy, but the casuality levels in this war are almostly unbelievably low compared to past wars. Yes, I truly believe the press in this country are guilty of collective treason, and should be tried for their crimes and punished according to war-time codes of justice.

I don't know when the average joe in this country is going to wake up and see what the goals of islamofascism are. How the west is being slowly infiltrated by muslim culture, which will eventually lead to a worldwide muslim majority and imposition of their sick cancer on Europe, and eventually us.

Proud conservative Republican

Answer 5

I'm delighted to see someone considering the side of the argument that no one pays attention to.

My thoughts on Iraq remain that the United States simply needs to have a presence in the Middle East. The area is simply too chaotic, too volatile for the United States to overlook. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and like it or not, we have to exercise our power when the need arises.

Answer 6

I'm an independent conservative:

Iraq IS our problem because we are part of the free-world and we should fight terrorists and their supporters/harborers.

Iraq IS our problem because we should not wait for more Iraq/Iran/or Saudi Arabian terrorists to plot and fly more planes (or worse) into our civilian population.

Iraq IS our problem because the only solution to the chaos in the Middle East is more democratic nations in that area with sane leaders. Not finatics with 7th Century political/social beliefs.

Answer 7

I like how your thinking positive but 20 to 25 years from now i don't think the middle east will be any better than it is now your still going to have Islamic Radicals fight for what they believe in its always going to happen we should have just stayed out of all that and kept making the money we where off the middle east but instead we got greedy all wars start due to religion or greedy this one just happens to be both and that's what makes it scary

Answer 8

No, because it still would have failed. It did not matter what the reason/excuse was. The reality was that invading Iraq for any purpose other than a quick spanking was a stupid idea doomed to failure. No one with any knowledge of the Middle east gave the invasion more than a 50 percent (random flip of a coin) chance of any success - that was the best assessment, and there were not many of them.

Answer 9

First, he did not say they had nuclear weapons. He said they had WMD. Study hard to learn the diff.

No, I would not have been "on board" for that reason. And wait for the release of the news that there were WMD. It should come out about the time we are going to elect a new President.

Answer 10

Insanely Liberal, I don't think so. A well thought out idea that may prove to be very accurate, absolutely.