Give me a simple, straightforward reason to oppose the Iraq war

No intentions. No motivations. Nothing about vague, potential downsides a decade from now. To opponents of the military action, please give me, as succintly as possible, a reason why we should have let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under what has now been proven to be a despicable, brutal regime. Case in point:

Set politics aside and please tell me, in a simple, straightforward manner, how a person can justify a belief in freedom and justice, yet advocate that we do not put a stop to these sorts of actions.

I would if I could. However, I'm glad he was deposed. Though I would have been happier with a more straight forward approach rather than the, "Axis of Mass Evil Destruction" angle. But really, who knows if any action would have been taken if the fear wasn't placed in our back pocket. Questions like these always have pro's and con's (do I need the apostrophe there?) and can't be answered with any clear cut case that leans perfectly either way. Regardless of the means, the Iraqi people are free, and there won't be any more mass graves created in any near future that I can see.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Simple (uncontextualised) reasons to object to this war (which outweigh the potential rescuing of Iraqis from a violent and undemocratic life)

-Invading countries to protect US profits is not acceptable (i.e. trying to prevent the end of the outrageous petrodollars system - after Saddam had converted to Euro-based oil-trade)

-Invasions like this can only claim success if they don't leave the country in internal/violent struggle (still a very strong possibility in Iraq. You tell me how they're going to set up a sustainable governing system that won't get overthrown, cause mass rebellion, or cause racial tension which leads to violence).

-The Bush admin has increased international tension massively (i.e. polarised it into US vs "The World" pretty much) through their mishandling of US influence/power, and this can lead to no good. (and even a lot of bad i.e. suffering [economic], even death [military] - if it is continually handled this ineptly)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A small amount of contextual stuff on the same issues - question anything you like and I'll give more reasons (and a greater percentage of facts/sourcing-to-verbage )..........

The big motive beyond compassion: Stopping iraq oil-trade in Euros and returning it to the Petrodollar system:

This is of huge economic benefit to the US, and is the most logical geopolitical reason for this invasion. If it is the major motivating factor there are two main problems:

(1) It heralds the start and possible extention of unilateral US military action to achieve selfish ends (Wesley Clarks assertion in his book that there is/was a plan to follow Iraq with invasions of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan lends credence to this idea). Terrorising other nations into submission through military might (and replacing their oppresive regimes with puppet ones for the States we can hypothesise) is hardly spreading democracy and peace.

And remember that many thousands of innocents, (enforced) combatants, and some US soldiers, die in these unequal conflicts - not to mention the numbers that die during "regime-changes" like that of Iraq (and the potential slaughter/in-fighting that will follow if it fails).

(2) Ineptness

The bad handling of regime change still mitigates against declaring the people of Iraq free from a life of in-fighting and death just yet. [or for a long time to come potentially. Ditto Afghanistan]

In another sphere, as Russia's hints about changing to the Euro show, this show of force may have backfired. Although the US can frighten the smaller nations of the middle east in this way (on a political/military level - all the while increasing international Arabic terrorism [remember that terrorism comes from adversity - and having an easy enemy too ]), a combined will is growing amongst non-US countries (lead by those with the autonomy/size/power not to be forced to comply with US wishes). This unilateral policy of the Bush-admin is polarising international politics into the US vs the world.

Given the Bush-admin's confrontational approach, there is the possibility that this could escalate to large-scale military confrontation (or possibly just an international economic war which could produce instability that would be far more damaging to the world at large than the petrodollars system is as things stand). Basically, it looks unlikely that "the world" will put up with the Bush-admin wielding American influence in the way it currently is forever.

Also worth noting are: Contradictions:

-UN sanctions were kept oppressive in nature by the US and UK primarily via the [EDIT-->] "661" security council meetings. (causing iraqi deaths in significant numbers and including specific policies to destroy infrastructure i.e. water, electricity, sewage, healthcare etc)
-The Bush admin supports and has supported totalitarian, population executing terrorist harborours (i.e. Saudis and [EDIT-->] extremist collectives in Afghanistan etc - causing population death in numerous ways).
-Deception and democracy reductions: O'Neill's recent revelations have demonstrated yet again that the Bush admin lied about reasons for war (ironically claiming it was tackling world terror while actually increasing its existence it seems). And to hear Bush banging on about freedom and democracy just lowers non-US opinion of the US even lower.

And finally, some speculation:

-If the Bush-admin does invade other countries in the middle-east, and attempt more regime changes - surely the fallout from that will be equal over time to the massacres that Saddam perpetuated, but will affect more countries? There's no exit date for iraq as it is, and no guarantee that it won't fall into violent internal-strife. And Afghanistan looks very unlikely to move away from violent local tryanny, neglected overall as it is (not helped by all the attention being focused on Iraq)

[EDIT - moved some "positive" speculations to another post, to stop this getting incredibly, ridiculously long ]

...

Unfortunately, the way things are, there is a still a strong possibility of: uncontrollable, violent chaos emerging in Iraq; similar inept and potentially counter-productive disruption being inflicted on the neighbouring area (thus increasing all the related downsides); and increased international terrorism - all caused by the invasion. There were better ways to tackle the problem of Saddam and help the iraqis gain a better life.

Very very basically: The bush-admin is rocking the boat too much. Something's gonna get spilt.

-So, sorry, it's just not as simple as "we rescued the iraqis from a dictator that put them to death in great numbers". You haven't rescued them yet, there's reason to believe you won't, and there are plenty of ways in which you have very possibly created further suffering and death by this action.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Actually, what I meant to say was what Golgot said, but I was sleepy.

That's a loaded question.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

No

Kong may be right. However...

I have no problem with murderous dictators being removed from power by military force. I have problems with a lot of other things regarding the Iraq "campaigne" though.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Ah, "You're either with us or against us" remember?

It's such a marvellously simple question on the face of it: How can attacking a bad guy be wrong? (surely it makes us the good guy by default, no? )

I put the very scantest over-view of some reasons why it's not that clear cut above. Not what we were asked for, but heigh ho - some things aren't that simple

[and sorry Yods - but to ask us to answer such a question, without recourse to the political, historical and social context really is far far too simplistic - Unanswerable. The fact is, Saddam's actions, and this invasion, have a multitude of issues surrounding them. It's like me asking you: "How oh how can the US justify supporting the oppressive Pakistani regime? Aren't they basically murdering bastards by extention? Yes or yes?". Absurd, no? - Now we both know that Saddam is an evil bastard (from a bastardised land). But from my perspective, if I'm correct about motives and situations (and indeed outcomes), this invasion and its context are "evil" too. If you want to talk about the morality of the invasion, you need to look at all the elements. That's all.]

When and how did Bush support the Taliban?

__________________

Can he answer this in 10 words or less........

__________________
~ Nikki ~

"I'm your hell, I'm your dream.......I'm nothing in between.......You know you wouldn't want it any other way".........

"Listen, when I slap you, you'll take it and like it"..........Humphrey Bogart..........Maltese Falcon.......

Graze on my lips and if those hills be dry, stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie...........William Shakespeare.......

It's much easier to assume I'm right.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

It was part of the listed contradictions (maybe he was refering to outside the US opinion and maybe my post and reputation counts are too low to be getting into this thread), wasn't it?


I think that the actions should have been carried out by the Iraqies themselves (but that would've taken ages), as there was just far too much politically to gain by invading Iraq (not the only reason) for Bush, and the rest of the world knew or percieved it. As such the political turmoil it caused (did I just repeat someone?).

__________________
Quack, quack?

Bush didn't, to my knowledge, support the Talibans in person. But the official USA is responsible for things that went on also before the time of the current president. It's not like a certain amount of responsibility of the american nation ends with a presidential era. That would mean that the president had all the power, a 100% of the power, and the president of USA is not a dictator, is he?

USA supported the Talibans when they were fighting a guerilla war against the soviet occupation forces. CIA trained and equipped them personally.

Yeah, the Taliban have recieved historical support from the US. But I've tried to limit myself to Bush-admin swipes recently - and I was referring specifically to the way Bush-n-co had no qualms about funding the Taliban and dealing with them (and if you believe the Brisard/Dasquie source - bribing and then threatening them into compliance with oil interests, while neglecting security/Osama issues)

Ok, so the direct funding the Taliban recieved from the US was to reward them for apparent limiting of the heroin trade on the face of it (tho in fact, trade seems even to have increased, across the Tajikistani border for example. The argument is that the Taliban probably did stop their farmers cultivating, quite possibly by force, but knowing full well that they had stockpiles that would increase in worth when the market reacted to the initial drop in supply). At 43 mil dollars, that's a big reward to hand out without checking the result - a reward that would have a big impact on such a weak economy.

But according to the ex-intelligence/journo team of Brisard and Dasquie, there was also an implicit bribe in this donation of money and the promise of further aid, designed to keep the Taliban away from the planned Turkmenistan-Pakistan pipeline (i.e. not attacking it). In fact, they say the bush-admin saw the Taliban as a source of stability in this region, as far as constructing the pipeline and moving oil-influence out of russian hands was concerned. [although it's worth mentioning that Russia, the US and six bordering countries also met with the taliban, via the UN, to try to get them to enter the political arena]

Their book claims that the Bush-admin initiated contact with the Taliban as soon as they came to power, and had numerous meetings with them. The Clinton admin had dealt with them from 94-97, but stopped thereafter.

A more damning claim about the nature of their involvement comes from ex-F.B.I. deputy director John O'Neill (yes - another O'Neill - those tricky irish ), who resigned over the following issue....as he allegedly said to Brisard: "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia." (and this included limitations of his powers to pursue Osama/al Qaeda in Afghanistan it seems, as well as Yemen and Saudi Arabia originally). O'Neill died in 9/11, so he can't really comment further. He seems to have been a bit of a zealous operator, but it's clear he was frustrated by the political acceptance of regimes like the Saudis and Taliban.

If the book's facts and assesments are correct, the US admin seems to have been far more interested in establishing this pipeline (which shifts oil control towards the US and away from Russia in central asia) than dealing with terrorism and repression in the region. This alledged quote from one of the meetings speaks volumes about the nature of the negotiations..."either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,"

Now, if they'd been discussing human rights issues at the time, I wouldn't mind so much (although it's not a very good negotiating technique is it? If anything, it's a bit of a terrorism-encouraging turn of phrase really). But the US-Taliban meetings had a clear oil agenda.

So, overall, in the sense that the Bush-admin were happy for the Taliban to exist, as long as they facilitated the switch in oil fortunes in the region, and happy to attempt to bribe them into compliance, that all amounts to support (or at the very least, cynical, self-interested engagement with their regime). The 6+2 (UN) meetings, as they we called, were more about establishing the old king if possible, and therefore a basis for further negotiations (and also therefore reducing Osama's influence - altho it was a naive objective which the Taliban rejected). The US-Taliban meetings seem to have been about oil, and how they could come to an amicable agreement, king or no king.

yeah, but it was just my opinion. Caitlyn always likes her facts, bless her - and don't you worry about rep and post stuff. Most of us can't count anyway Throw yourself into the debate

Erm, yes....if you add a few more zeros in

While I agree a certain amount of responsibility is carried over from one Presidential administration to another… I disagree that the USA supported or funded the Taliban, as we know them today, during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Why… because the Taliban never fought against the Soviets… they didn’t even arrive on the scene until the mid 90’s and were mainly comprised of men who were the children of Afghan families that fled to Pakistan in the wake of the Soviet invasion… The majority of the male children in these families were housed in Pakistan and educated by religious parties… unfortunately those religious parties taught Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam…the most puritanical, restrictive and harsh interpretation of Islam… even the name Taliban means student.

Historically, the US did supply arms to and train the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet army during the early 80’s… and it is entirely probable that some of the Mujahadeen did join the Taliban during their rise to power in the 90’ s… and since the US did provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan refugees during the Soviet invasion which would have included the children being taught by the religious parties… I guess it could be said the US did fund the Taliban at that time… but not in the capacity most journalists, etc. make it appear

Dude, what part of "no motivations" was hazy? And is this claim about petrodollars speculation, or proven fact? Because from what I understand, there is no petrodollars "system." There's no centralized institution or anything of the sort...it's just the name we give money used in the buying and selling of oil.

Originally Posted by Golgot

-Invasions like this can only claim success if they don't leave the country in internal/violent struggle (still a very strong possibility in Iraq. You tell me how they're going to set up a sustainable governing system that won't get overthrown, cause mass rebellion, or cause racial tension which leads to violence).

Listing this as a reason implies that you believe the current struggle to be worse than the injustice before. That seems pretty extreme to me, to say the very least.

Originally Posted by Golgot

-The Bush admin has increased international tension massively (i.e. polarised it into US vs "The World" pretty much) through their mishandling of US influence/power, and this can lead to no good. (and even a lot of bad i.e. suffering [economic], even death [military] - if it is continually handled this ineptly)

Finally, a real reason. Okay, so you think that the benefits of freeing a brutalized people is outweighed by the animosity moving in has caused between the United States and other countries. Now, setting aside the fact that I believe "US vs The World" to be a very gross exaggeration, if your complaint is that we moved in without support, does that mean you think we should've had support? Shouldn't the international community have concurred with the notion that Saddam had to be removed from power?

C'mon, Gol. I asked you to judge the action itself, independent of motivation, and you list contradictions about its stated purpose? That's a knock on the administration, not the action itself.

And why would Clark have any credibility in such matters? He is not, to my knowledge, affiliated with the administration.

As for O'Neill: I'm familiar with the situation, and it does not "demonstrate" that in the least. The only thing it demonstrates, from what I've read, is that Bush had it in his head that Saddam had to go fairly early on. This is, in my mind, as much to his credit as to his detriment. This exaggeration is eerily reminiscent of your misstated claims about Rumsfeld's leaked memo. I think you're generally pretty fair, but when it comes to your sources (and I hope I do not offend you by saying this), I feel you put quite a slant on them sometimes.

What ways did you have in mind?

This is the only real answer to my question I can find in your post; the statement that the action, right or wrong, causes too much animosity. Which begs the question: since trying to free an oppressed nation is clearly an admirable, noble thing, are you saying that such a thing should be compromised simply because its unpopular?

I'm not saying any such thing. But if it's admirable to free them, then it's also admirable to try to free them. And I think you'd have a tough time making the case that, with all the problems we've faced, things aren't better for the Iraqis. And that's assuming things won't get any better, though I think we would all acknowledge that they likely will.

Why? It's only loaded if you think I'm going to pounce on you after answering it, as if I'd somehow proven that you had no reason to oppose it. I'm not suggesting that by admitting the action to be a good thing, you must renege on your opposition. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that, for all the protesting, the action itself was a good thing, and that matters far, far more than opponents of the war give it credit for. They harp on what they don't like about it, conveniently ignoring the most important aspect of the action.

I hate to sound like an argumentative tyrant, but I didn't ask whether or not there was more to the situation than the technical result. I asked about the action itself. Of course there's more to it than that, but I'm doing this to make a point. You're using a very straightforward question as a launching pad for a answers I'm not asking for.

We've gone back and forth on the other aspects of the war time and time again, and presumably will continue to do so. I didn't create this thread because I think we need a nice, even 286 to discuss the issue in. I created it to demonstrate just what people actually oppose about this war.

Sure it can be evil. But evil motivations leading to good results, while not bearing well for the future, do not cease to make the action itself good.

Cait hit the nail on the head with this one. To say we "funded" them makes it sound like we knowingly assisted terrorists who intended to attack us.

In reality, it's little more than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes this is a wise course, and sometimes it is not. For some odd reason, though, people have it in their heads that if we support anyone in any capacity, we are therefore responsible if they ever go bad (or worse). As Steve has so eloquently stated in the past, the fact that we've unintentionally had a hand in the creation of some of our opponents is all the more reason for us to take it upon ourselves to deal with them.

Not to mention that the origins of such a group are more or less irrelevant when discussing how best to handle them. It's an anti-US ad hominem argument. It does not speak to the issue, because the topic of discussion is not "list as many US mistakes as possible."

43 million would be a big reward… if it were true… but it is not. The 43 million dollar grant was in humanitarian aid and distributed in Afghanistan through International agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental relief agencies… it was aimed to help alleviate the famine that threatened the lives of millions of Afghans and the United States made every effort to keep the aid out of the hands of the Taliban… they definitely did not hand over 43 millions dollars to them.

I am not trying to claim that the United States is perfect by any means but to accuse them of monetarily aiding the Taliban when in fact they were attempting to aid in the prevention of millions of people starving to death is absurd… Personally I think it is criminal the way journalists are so intent on sensationalism now that the truth is glossed over in their quest for celebrity status… and if this were not true, the journalist would have gotten their facts right in the first place… and mentioned the fact that the Clinton administration granted 114 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan the previous year through the exact same agencies for the exact same reasons…

Ah, whoops, i didn't check the specifics of this one very well then. All i really know is that, if the french-duo's accusations are accurate (from commentaries and interviews i've read - i haven't read the book : ) then some form of financial carrot has been waved at the Taliban to get them to comply. I just had a quick check for money that seemed to have gone the taliban's way during that period and assumed that was it, or a big part of it.

I would never categorise humanitarian aid as a bribe or support for the taliban. I'd still consider it dodgy if it was involved in some of the more unsettling aspects of international oil dealings, but i wouldn't consider it support.

I'll try and check out any other funding that may have gone their way, or been promised to them, that would explain comments like the alledged "carpet of gold..." one.

It’s really not your fault… some journalist (I can’t think of his name right now and will have to look it up) wrote a very damning article accusing the US (Bush) of supporting the Taliban without bothering to check his facts out… unfortunately several other news agencies picked up on the story and ran with it until the thing was blown totally out of proportion and the truth lost in the headlines…