Looks like the US is going home.

[pinko]

"What I said is Iraq suffered, and continues to suffer, from internal problems outside of U.S. et al involvement"

In what respect is Iraq suffering in your view?

It seems to me Iraq has a functioning democracy with a parliament and a representative form of government. What are these problems you refer to?

[Moonlight Graham]

So you support keeping a brutal dictator in power? For the sake of ... what? A sense of stability? In spite of what too many are being subjected to? Because I'm reading it as if you're supporting or defending Saddam being left in power.

This question comes down whether more harm/suffering would result if Saddam was left in power or if more harm has and will result because of the war, ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

This also involves some future guessing, unfortunately. What would Saddam and his sons have done had they been left in power VS what future violence will occur in Iraq under the new regime? will there be eventual civil war? will another despotic leader eventually take control in Iraq?

Despite all this, the point is mooted by the fact that a war solely to remove Saddam from power would have been wrong on the grounds that there are many much worse humanitarian situations in the world where US/western resources should have gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Despite all this, the point is mooted by the fact that a war solely to remove Saddam from power would have been wrong on the grounds that there are many much worse humanitarian situations in the world where US/western resources should have gone.

This kind of logic would quickly run afoul of history, including the great wars of the 20th century. The specifics of Saddam's undoing are directly related to events going back to his invasion of Kuwait, as supported by UN instruments, the same UN that did not act in Rwanda. Making judgements in this context concerning other nation's interests and actions is a fool's errand.

[Moonlight Graham]

This kind of logic would quickly run afoul of history, including the great wars of the 20th century. The specifics of Saddam's undoing are directly related to events going back to his invasion of Kuwait, as supported by UN instruments, the same UN that did not act in Rwanda. Making judgements in this context concerning other nation's interests and actions is a fool's errand.

I'm not looking at the context of the war in that way, and not trying to get into arguments about what the UN did or didn't approve. I'm simply looking at it from a moral perspective. Any country invading Iraq to depose of Saddam simply for humanitarian purposes would be better spent using its resources on greater humanitarian problems (not to dismiss the disgusting deeds of Saddam).

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I'm simply looking at it from a moral perspective. Any country invading Iraq to depose of Saddam simply for humanitarian purposes would be better spent using its resources on greater humanitarian problems (not to dismiss the disgusting deeds of Saddam).

Saddam was not toppled for "humanitarian" purposes, but that is a lesser included result. Any country would be foolish to pursue your judgement of what is a moral cause before considering its own interests.

[eyeball]

This question comes down whether more harm/suffering would result if Saddam was left in power or if more harm has and will result because of the war, ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

There is little doubt that invading Iraq was a complete disaster. The invasion of Iraq didn't so much vindicate Bin Laden's 9/11 attack as much as it undid the harm the attack of 9/11 did to the Jihadist's cause.

Some of the harshest critics of the 9/11 attacks have been al Qaeda insiders such as Abd-Al-Halim Adl, who in June 2002 wrote to the 9/11 operational commander, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, saying: “Today we must completely halt all external actions until we sit down and consider the disaster we caused. The east Asia, Europe, America, horn of Africa, Yemen, Gulf, and Morocco groups have fallen.”

Yet Bin Laden and his attacks on the US have shaped an ideological movement that will outlive him. Binladenism has drawn tremendous energy from the war in Iraq, and will probably gain further adherents from the conflict in Lebanon. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak was prescient when he warned in 2003 that the Iraq war would spawn “100 new Bin Ladens.” It is that new generation of militants that is Bin Laden’s legacy.

Source

You think one 1 Saddam is worth a 100 Bin Ladens? 100 more that is given the original is still on the loose.

[Moonlight Graham]

Saddam was not toppled for "humanitarian" purposes, but that is a lesser included result.

Obviously, but i never stated such.

Any country would be foolish to pursue your judgement of what is a moral cause before considering its own interests.

I agree.

[Moonlight Graham]

You think one 1 Saddam is worth a 100 Bin Ladens?

100 bin Laden's and a million Mohamed Atta's.

[pinko]

Apart from the rather dubious premise for the invasion of Iraq in the first place the question remains are the people of Iraq, on balance, better off now than they were before the occupation of their country? The infrastructure has been destroyed and thousands have been killed and wounded. That people are still questioning what the future will hold is, in itself, an admission of failure. The cost of that war to the American treasury is estimated in the trillions of dollars not to mention troop deaths and casualties. While the USA was satisfying George W. Bush's desire to kill and capture Saddam Hussien the effort in Afghanistan floundered and opponents there regrouped.

As it currently stands Iran has gained influence at the expense of the west both in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. If the American goal was to bring peace and stability to the region they have failed. With all the military might available there is still no end in sight.

The USA should take heed with what happened to the British and the Russians when they attempted to occupy countries in that region.

Edited January 2, 2011 by pinko

[dre]

This question comes down whether more harm/suffering would result if Saddam was left in power or if more harm has and will result because of the war, ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Where things get sticky is that even IF we could somehow know, that more people would have died or suffered by leaving Saddam in power, that still does not necessarily justify the invasion. Its morally wrong to take one persons life because you believe it might save another person life or other peoples lives.

Consider the following analogy...

Theres 4 people in a hospital. The first needs a heart transplant or he will die. The second needs a liver or he will die. The third needs a pancreas or HE will die. The fourth is absolutely healthy, and just showed up for a routine physical.

The school of thought that attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that since Saddam is gone less people overall will die even when you count the casualties of the war, would recommend that you grab the fourt (healthy) patient, sieze his heart, liver, and pancreas and install them in the other three patients. Three people in the group get to live now because of your actions, whereas your failure to act would have resulted in only one of them living. Thats a net reduction in the ammount of human deaths.

When you put this question to people in almost any culture nearly 100% of people say that its morally wrong to kill patient 4 to save patients 1, 2, and 3. The end does not justify the means.

I know you werent personally trying to make this case, but I wanted to expand on that part of your post.

According to human morality some things are WRONG even if they would produce a positive result.

[bloodyminded]

Saddam was not toppled for "humanitarian" purposes, but that is a lesser included result.

Since the situation in Iraq is more dire now from a "humanitarian" perspective than it was before, it is decidedly not an "included result."

[Guest TrueMetis]

Where things get sticky is that even IF we could somehow know, that more people would have died or suffered by leaving Saddam in power, that still does not necessarily justify the invasion. Its morally wrong to take one persons life because you believe it might save another person life or other peoples lives.

Consider the following analogy...

Theres 4 people in a hospital. The first needs a heart transplant or he will die. The second needs a liver or he will die. The third needs a pancreas or HE will die. The fourth is absolutely healthy, and just showed up for a routine physical.

The school of thought that attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that since Saddam is gone less people overall will die even when you count the casualties of the war, would recommend that you grab the fourt (healthy) patient, sieze his heart, liver, and pancreas and install them in the other three patients. Three people in the group get to live now because of your actions, whereas your failure to act would have resulted in only one of them living. Thats a net reduction in the ammount of human deaths.

When you put this question to people in almost any culture nearly 100% of people say that its morally wrong to kill patient 4 to save patients 1, 2, and 3. The end does not justify the means.

I know you werent personally trying to make this case, but I wanted to expand on that part of your post.

According to human morality some things are WRONG even if they would produce a positive result.

Worst analogy ever.

[Guest American Woman]

"What I said is Iraq suffered, and continues to suffer, from internal problems outside of U.S. et al involvement"

In what respect is Iraq suffering in your view?

It seems to me Iraq has a functioning democracy with a parliament and a representative form of government. What are these problems you refer to?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at or what your views actually are in this area. I clearly said that I thought getting rid of Saddam was for the good, so obviously I wouldn't see "democracy [et al]" as a problem. You, however, asked:

Do you not recognize the damage that has been inflicted upon Iraq by the duplicitous conduct of your government?

and without getting rid of Saddam, the Democracy you refer to wouldn't exist. It just seems to me your statements are in contradiction of each other.

I am sure you will agree that the oil resources in the Middle East is what attracted the Americans to the region in the first place.

Of course I realize that our interest in the area is oil, but I'm not sure how that relates to the responses I've made. Another interest, of course, is Israel, and we'd like to see more democracies thrive in the ME. But again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've already said that I didn't support going to war, so obviously I don't support "interfering in sovereign nations' internal politics," so what you're asking/your point isn't clear to me in light of my views.

Obviously there are factions in Iraq vying for power, which existed before the war. There is a lot of unrest and violence within Iraq due to internal problems that existed before the war.

[Guest American Woman]

This question comes down whether more harm/suffering would result if Saddam was left in power or if more harm has and will result because of the war, ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

From what I was reading, there were hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties due to the sanctions. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that is a valid question. Would you say the continuation of slavery should depend on whether or not slaves lived better under their masters than they would on their own? It seems to me a question such as that condones brutal dictators. Sometimes things get worse before they get better, but at least they get better. In this instance, hopefully, under a democracy, things will get better. Of course no one has the answer to such questions beforehand, and as I said I didn't support going to war, but even so, I questioned the things I'm bringing up now within myself. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer, as too many people suffer either way. In other words, both arguments provide valid points.

However, since no one can undo what was done, I have to see Saddam no longer being in power as better than his still being in power. I can't say 'well, it was better when Saddam was in power because even though he was a tyrant and brutally killing people and waging war and using gas on civilians because less people were dying' (if that's even the case) because we could say there might be less murders in our nations if we had a tyrant controlling us, and not allowing us freedoms. Would that make things "better" in our nations?

This also involves some future guessing, unfortunately. What would Saddam and his sons have done had they been left in power VS what future violence will occur in Iraq under the new regime? will there be eventual civil war? will another despotic leader eventually take control in Iraq?

Honestly, if history has shown us anything, it's that we have no answers to these questions regarding any nation. I will say this, though -- when our forefathers were fighting for our freedom, I doubt whether they asked themselves 'will another nation's crown eventually take over/take control?' I don't think that was an issue in their desire for independence.

Of course any nation that's fighting for democracy could succumb to civil war/another despotic leader, but I don't think that's grounds for passively keeping such leaders. I don't think we should ever accept injustices because we fear what standing up for ourselves could result in.

So while the questions are valid, and are questions I've asked myself, what's done is done, so hopefully democracy and the good of the people will prevail. Under Saddam, those weren't even possibilities.

Despite all this, the point is mooted by the fact that a war solely to remove Saddam from power would have been wrong on the grounds that there are many much worse humanitarian situations in the world where US/western resources should have gone.

I don't think that's true. Since Saddam's regime was brutal, there's nothing "morally wrong" with removing it from power just because there are "worse" out there. That's like saying it's morally wrong to give to any poor/disadvantaged people who aren't the poorest of the poor because that's where our resources should have gone.

[pinko]

"Since Saddam's regime was brutal, there's nothing "morally wrong" with removing it from power just because there are "worse" out there. That's like saying it's morally wrong to give to any poor/disadvantaged people who aren't the poorest of the poor because that's where our resources should have gone."

I am not sure morality should enter into these discussions. However if it does there are many examples of immoral conduct by the American military industrial complex and its active support of repressive regimes. There are many examples in Central and South America. Again you appear to ignore the involvement of the CIA and its role in helping Saddam in his rise to power in the 1950s.

Here is one of a number of links http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

Edited January 2, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

"I don't support "interfering in sovereign nations' internal politics," so what you're asking/your point isn't clear to me in light of my views."

It should be obvious. Although you seem to be sucking and blowing you condone your government orchestrating the downfall of Saddam Hussien.

Here is another link for you http://www.iraqwararchive.org/data/apr20/canada/star002.pdf

Edited January 2, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

At this link you will see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddan Hussien.

http://www.fantompowa.org/cia_coups_iraq.htm

[dre]

Worst analogy ever.

Nice non-post.

No it isnt. Its not even mine actually its part of a study on human morals, and its complete relevant here. If you support that particular justification for the war in Iraq you have to believe that its moral to forfeit the life of third part (against their will) to save the life of a 4th party. The example in the hospital points out the absurdity of such a justification.

[bloodyminded]

Nice non-post.

No it isnt. Its not even mine actually its part of a study on human morals, and its complete relevant here. If you support that particular justification for the war in Iraq you have to believe that its moral to forfeit the life of third part (against their will) to save the life of a 4th party. The example in the hospital points out the absurdity of such a justification.

Yes, it's a reductio ad absurdum, properly made. (Many people are under the misapprehension that a reductio is a fallacious argument. It isn't. It's a perfectly legitimate form of argument, providing it follows the same logic as the point it's criticizing.)

And in fact, you have here shown that the best-case, justificatory argument isn't good; when we get down to the actual series of events, the three-to-one ratio you posit is, if anything, reversed. The war has been catastrophic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since the situation in Iraq is more dire now from a "humanitarian" perspective than it was before, it is decidedly not an "included result."

It is if you are one of many factions that suffered under Baath/Sunni rule. [insert Godwin's Law logical rebuttal here]

[dre]

It is if you are one of many factions that suffered under Baath/Sunni rule. [insert Godwin's Law logical rebuttal here]

All youve done is trade that set of victims for another set of victims, and installed a government that once the US is gone is likely to align more closely with Iran.

[bloodyminded]

All youve done is trade that set of victims for another set of victims, and installed a government that once the US is gone is likely to align more closely with Iran.

Forget it, he made a stupid argument, and he knows it, and doesn't care.

I was talking about the majority of Iraqis, and the number of people suffering and killed.

He was talking about American nationalist support for policy.

[Guest American Woman]

"Since Saddam's regime was brutal, there's nothing "morally wrong" with removing it from power just because there are "worse" out there. That's like saying it's morally wrong to give to any poor/disadvantaged people who aren't the poorest of the poor because that's where our resources should have gone."

I am not sure morality should enter into these discussions. However if it does there are many examples of immoral conduct by the American military industrial complex and its active support of repressive regimes. There are many examples in Central and South America. Again you appear to ignore the involvement of the CIA and its role in helping Saddam in his rise to power in the 1950s.

Here is one of a number of links http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

I'm not the one who brought morality into it; I simply responded to the idea that it's morally wrong to have removed Saddam since there are worse leaders out there, and explained why that line of thought doesn't wash.

As for what you claim I'm ignoring, it has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here/my point of view. I don't feel as if I have to bring up the history of the world to discuss one aspect of an event, especially when said history has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

It should be obvious. Although you seem to be sucking and blowing you condone your government orchestrating the downfall of Saddam Hussien.

Seems to me you're the one sucking and blowing as you criticize the U.S. for going to war while pointing out that Iraq now has an acting democracy.

I'm simply stating my views, which I've applied to the real world; the situation as it exists. I've clearly stated that since we can't undo what's been done I see Saddam no longer being in power as a good thing, and hope for the best regarding Iraq's emerging democracy. If you see something wrong with that view, address it, not everything under the sun.

Edited January 2, 2011 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Apart from the rather dubious premise for the invasion of Iraq in the first place the question remains are the people of Iraq, on balance, better off now than they were before the occupation of their country?

Whatever the official (UN et al) paperwork reason for invading Iraq was you can't tease apart the fact the Bush administration created the distinct impression that Saddam was only ever a dot or two away from both 9/11 and Bin Laden. These were as much the premise.

On balance, I'd say the people of Iraq are as worse off as the rest of the world. We all have to live in a more dangerous one now considering the results of the invasion, 100 more bin Ladens and a million Mohamed Attas.

[pinko]

And I am simply stating my views and it is obvious we don't see things in the same light.

"I see Saddam no longer being in power as a good thing, and hope for the best regarding Iraq's emerging democracy."

It probably is but as has been previously noted the jury is still out.

Edited January 2, 2011 by pinko