why do people defend the iraq war by saying that we've installed democracy in a previously tyrannized country

Question

i won't get into why the country was better off before the war, instead i'll ask a different question:

do you think we should invade every country we can that we see as tyrannized? even if the people that are supposedly being oppressed don't invite us over

(including, but not limited to, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia and many other countries in Africa, North Korea, etc.?)

g man, you mean the al anfar campaign of the 80's? lol

Answer 1

Nah, after this war, I think we should disregard any intelligence that suggests WMD's and wait until we get a mushroom cloud in San Francisco.

Reactive and certain is much better than proactive ;)

Answer 2

I doubt that anyone could "get into why the country was better off before the war" because the war is ongoing and this determination can only be made when the war is over. It's self evident that pretty much any country isn't better off when there is a war raging in their country. We'll let history answer that question - if we are successful, obviously a free and independent country is better than a regime under the likes of Saddam.
As far as invading any country that is oppressed, I doubt that will be necessary as more and more countries become electoral democracies - and since WWII and the more recent break up of the USSR, this has been the trend.

Answer 3

We went into Iraq because after 911 we wanted a US friendly middle eastern nation on our side to secure our best interests in the region and to be able to hunt down terrorists. Hussein, by deliberately going against the UN ceasefire agreements, he signed after invading Kuwait, gave us the perfect opportunity to do so.

If in a few years Iraq becomes a stable, free, friendly nation to the US then Bush will go down as a very succesful president and not only will the US benefit, but the Iraqi nation will have benefitted greatly as well. We should all be hoping that is the end result

Whether you were for the war or not, we are there and it is in our best interest and the Iraqis best interest that it succeeds. Running now and handing the country basically over to Iran is insane.

Answer 4

1) the US only attacks countrys that are defenceless - it took about half an hour to beat Saddam and his armies right? This terrible man who was threatening the World and look how long it was before Baghdad was flying the US flag.

2) the US hates democracy (sorry having a choice between two rich white guys doesn't make you a democracy) so why would they go around installing it? What they install are client regimes - rather like regional managers - forget democracy.

Answer 5

No, we should only be kicking countries in the balls if we believe they pose a clear and present danger to our country and its allies, or are harbouring people who do. In other words, any country that is being run by Islamists. They have no respect for life (they feel they are going to heaven by killing non-muslims after all) and can cause great harm if they have state resources to commit acts of terrorism.

I think any tyranny that keeps the scumbag Islamists down is good to go, and that included Hussien and Pakistan's leader. Hussein would have been an awesome ally against Iran - a country we should have taken on, not to "liberate" their people, but to eliminate their growing destructive capability.

Answer 6

You seem to be arguing against yourself, so I bet you'll win the argument. It's a nice bit of self-validation if you need a coping mechanism but hardly political discourse. It's perfectly reasonable to point out the benefits of democracy without leaping to the idea that it was the only, or even primary, reason for the invasion.

Answer 7

How you could possibly think that Hussein and his cohorts was better, is beyond me! Further, we're not talking about all the other countries in the world who are being "tyrannized." We're talking about Iraq. And I bet you think we should go into Sudan because of what's going on in Darfur, right?

Answer 8

I don't justify the war in Iraq with that argument, I justify it with we knew he had used WMD's in the past and was continuing to committ massive acts of genocide, now he isn't because he is dead.

No I mean when he gassed the Kurds and then committed genocide on the Shiites in the southern region of the country. Look it up.

Answer 9

"The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related, that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again"
Thomas Paine

Stupid is as stupid does!
Forrest Gump

Brilliance and stupidity in agreement! Just like your Question!

Answer 10

we've installed many terrorists into Iraq is about all we've accomplished.