If Iraq is a stable democracy in 5 years, will those on the left still believe that the Iraq war was a mistake

Question

The way I see it the Iraq War question boils down to one thing: Will it have a positive effect on U.S. security? If it does, then it was worth it. If it doesn't, the war was a mistake. Can we all agree on this?

So with that in mind, can't we all agree on this: Having a pro-democracy, pro-U.S. government located in the heart of the Islamic world makes the United States safer.

True or False?

I have to say this. One of the more unflattering characteristics of the anti-war left/liberal/non-conservative is this: They cheat.
They stack the deck.

Usually debating means taking one side of an issue and defending it. But liberals triangulate their arguments so that they CAN'T lose. If the war is a failure they win because that is what they have been arguing all along. If the war is a success they STILL win because the war was a lie and began under false pretenses.

How childish to not allow any scenario where YOU are just plain wrong. That is what I am willing to do. If Iraq falls into chaos I will admit my opinions to be wrong. You of course will NEVER do that if Iraq is a success. It just epitomizes the entire liberal agenda. You MUST be wronged victims, no matter the issue.

sad really

Answer 1

South Viet Nam fell to the North after years of US involvement. For our efforts, I think more than 50,000 US troops were slaughtered, and unnumbered S. Vietnamese suffered, to include women and children. And South Nam fell anyway.

To this day, I'm not seeing any text books saying the war was a mistake. And I know it was not mentioned as a mistake -- or even a loss -- during my 20 years active duty service. We "learned such and such" the texts would say, about improved weoponry and communications, and the hard facts of limited engagement. But never an admittance of error, or that we lost that one.

Isn't that sad? Sad that the official word is still, seemingly, in complete denial about the cost and outcome of that war?

My point is _not_ that this is another 'Nam brewing (tho it does smell like it) but rather, I don't see any important people admitting anything about anything. So, besides you and a handful of others, I see no future admition of anything regardless of how Iraq turns out.

You seem like the thinking type, so let me please throw this one out, just for thought, and response if you like:

If Iraq is a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10), does this infer, prove or indicate that the Iraq war was Not a mistake?

cheers....

(it's all just opinion anyway, right? You say "if Iraq falls into chaos...". So, seems you feel that Iraq is currently Not in chaos. For me, that's kind of a surprising and different view)

Answer 2

First of all that is a big if. If it is not will conservatives admit it was a massive mistake?
Second - even if it is I will be happy that a good end has come about. But a good end will not change some key facts. First the war was justified by UN resolutions that did not authorize force. Second the case for war was built on lies and proved to be wrong. Third the war was in breach of international law in that it was not retaliatory and was not endorsed by the UN Security Council. As such the way we went to war will remain a stain on America's moral high ground and status regardless of the outcome.

And I certainly cannot agree with your statement that the war can solely be judged on it's effect on US security. The impact on the entire world must be considered, not some selfish nationalistic idea that we can do whatever we want so long as it is good for us.

Despite what you say - the point is not invalid. The US did initiate an illegal war of agression. There is no evidence that this was the only way to achieve the outcome you wish to use to justify the war.

Answer 3

You just dont get it. No matter what happens there, we had not right to GO there. Our "mission" such as it was ended when Saddam was captured. All we are doing now is forcing our way of life onto a people that really have no use for it. So if you believe that "victory" means being an imperialistic force that is bent on making the world an annex, well then yeah. I suppose there is some argument for success. But when the mission is flawed to begin with, the ends simply cannot justify the means. We have NO BUSINESS trying to turn the middle east into America.

There have been pro US governments in the US over the years. Political climates change there more frequently than Bush changes his underwear. It is completely ridiculous to think that we are going to change a thousand years of culture simply because we toppled a statue. Belief in this is more dangerous than the war itself. And George Bush is the most diluded person to ever hold the office of the president. Nothing will change that.

Iran was once pro American by the way. We inserted our puppet governement there too. But that history thing seems to escape this administration and the people who still believe in it.

Answer 4

first off... only a fool puts himself in a position where he can't win... and that's what Bush has done... as you illustrate...

you can't start a war based on lies and just expect it to be OK... and everyone will forget as long as you win... life doesn't work that way...

but moving on, good things COULD potentially still come out of Iraq, so that would be good...

there are a few problems though...

1. the 9-11 report was fairly clear that Iraq wasn't involved in the attacks... so it's up for debate just how much removing him makes America "safer"... I think it would be very difficult to argue that Saddam was a bigger threat than those listed with links to 9-11... like Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan (which we did invade) and Pakistan...

2. can you think YOU IDEA through for a second... now think.... a nation that has an Islamic majority... and you're putting a democracy into place... this will insure an Islamic leadership, and I don't know how familiar you are with Islam, but it WON'T be the "pro-capitalism, pro-freedom, democracy" that you're thinking it will be... Islam doesn't jive with that...
so, even if it's a stable democracy, it's VERY UNLIKELY to be pro-American... since America isn't Muslim...

Answer 5

AMERICA has only been a country for 230 years, and WE aren't even a "stable democracy," genius.

how incredibly arrogant, to think that we could simply go to an area of the world that has been operating a certain way for 4 times as long as we've even been a nation, and impose a new kind of government on it, and expect that it will not only succeed, but be completely stable.

Bush has changed the definition of "success in Iraq" so that it simply means something short of all-out chaos.

Answer 6

Has your husband or sibling or someone you know died or has become horribly disabled over in Iraq? I hardly think being a stable democracy in 5 years will be worth it, or to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a cause of the war / occupation. The truth is, even if Iraq magically becomes stable, the actions of the US have created far more terrorists than there ever were before. We have MORE people out there that want to kill us today than before 9/11. If we wanted to become more safe and more secure, we would leave the Muslim world alone and focus on protecting our own borders so they can't attack us here.

Answer 7

The great majority of Americans now think the war was a mistake. Maybe because the cost is over $1 trillion. Maybe because most terrorism experts say it has made us less safe.

And who is going to pay for it?

The next 8 generations of hard-working American taxpayers. NOT the oil companies OR the super-rich who got a massive tax cut from the GOP.

Historians will NEVER agree on the long-term impact of this lie-based war, so your question is moot.

Answer 8

Why not also be concerned about the stability of the world as a whole? The USA isn't exempt from the status of the rest of the world. If the whole rest of the world turns against us, it's not like we can just elevate the country like some house in the Jetson's...If they all turn on us we're ****ed. We need to start looking at every innocent Iraqi casualty like it's happening right here at home. We need to start holding ourselves as equils amongst the international community. That's the only way the rest of the world will take us seriously.

Answer 9

Keep on dreaming. The American occupation of Iraq continues to be a recruiting tool for the terrorists. Even if the violence subsides and they have a puppet pro-American regime there it can never be a democracy. Overwhelming majority of Iraqis are anti-American, so they will elect somebody who is anti-American once they have a chance for true democracy.

Answer 10

it relatively is an argument of opinion, needless to say. i've got self assurance that it grew to become into. the US and Britain have been in a relentless state of conflict with Iraq for greater then 10 years (implementing the "no fly" zone) with the UN showing little inclination to implementing its own edicts to offer up it so, faster or later, a call by making use of the US and Britain to end the conflict on their very own grew to become into inevitable. the story the Hussein concocted to fool Iran into no longer invading his weakened united states that he grew to become into coming up WMDs that he led the entire international into believing under the improper theory that the rustic could under no circumstances invade an earthly Islamic united states backfired on him offering a sturdy context for the invasion that observed. Congress' approval to the Bush administration to invade sealed his destiny.