The War (In Iraq :p)

[-Edge-]

Mmm hey,

So I've begun the final stages of my philosophy class where I need to do a presentation on a subject chosen by my teacher. Being the ass he is, my teacher naturally prompted to make me laugh at my own country

So I am collecting different views of people on the war in Iraq. I've already asked this question in my school, among friends, and various forums, so now I will ask it here. The question is, what is your current stance on it? I think most of us are smart enough to understand the basic idea that there is probably more meaning behind it, like for example oil, globalization, etc.

So lets talk about it a bit, for example. Especially even if someone wants to go as far down the lines of a conspiracy theory.

Let me begin with what I would like to start out with. I believe that obviously the USA had nothing to do in Iraq, 9/11 was used as an excuse to start the war itself. 9/11 itself left the US with a huge feeling of a need for revenge, that revenge didn't need to go out, but it did nevertheless. With the reason of fighting "for peace in the world," because the US presents itself everywhere as the hero, fighting always for the right cause. That cause has been wrong however, the US itself gave funding to Al-Queda in the Cold War, years later that funding would be turned against it, some would even say righteously.

From the Middle Eastern point of view, the USA invaded the "peaceful lands" of the Middle East. That the war in Iraq is driven heavily for oil demand, a demand that the US has enough money to legally buy off of Iraq. In a case like this once again the US has the resources to buy oil, but instead they want to "help" Iraq by telling them what kind of government they should run. The government should of course be the same as their kind, the superior ideal kind, democracy. But this aid is taken the wrong way, its the same case in Africa where the US agribusiness works such huge surpluses of food they need to throw it away, or "donate" it to Africa as "aid" (Of course I understand food needs to be controlled to keep the economy stable, if too much food would be put into the market then if would collapse prices people are built upon now)

That is the case of aid, off topic to the war in Iraq, but similar in structure. If the US really wanted to aid Africa, they would give Africa money, not their overstocked surpluses of food. (By giving Africa food aid, it puts African farmers out of work, and at the same time leaves Africa nowhere, dependent upon the US. Iraq will be dependent in the exact same way) It's another example of continuing the US isolationism, but the US still thrives because it makes business among countries. Like in Poland where Poland bought some used F-16's, and the government wanted to accept an anti-rocket shield to protect Poland (From?... If Poland needs defense, I believe they should build it themselves) The US once again makes money, and jobs, off deals in other countries. While they themselves are still strictly isolated from the world. The US got out of the Great Depression by giving loans to other countries, and supplying arms and ammunition during the First World War, later they called in all those loans and rose above everyone else.

When we look back at history, we see Korea and Vietnam, from American history we look at them as very important wars, maybe not going very deep into them, but they are important. I do not know about the rest of the world, but I think the majority of people look at Iraq as a common war, something small. But look around you more closely, how many of you actually realize what this is? How many people throw away their lives, for what? What is gained? Who gains? Is it really for peace in the world? In my opinion Iraq has already surpassed Korea and Vietnam, years from now people will look at it totally different. It's a war being fought against terrorism... but is it really all the way?

The world has already taken huge measures in defense against terrorism, and it is successful. Yeah there will always be accidents, but you can never stop that 0.1%. So is it really needed to continue now, even at these stages? If the USA wanted to they could evacuate the military campaign in the east at any moment. Are we still in such a huge threat of terrorism that its that bad to continue fighting an enemy that is already without legs? The damage has sunk in, on both sides. I don't deny terrorism, it's there. I'm just saying is there still reason for the war to press on, unless it is for something else.

I would appreciate if someone gives facts too, expand what I talked about, share your own view, and by all means, you are free to disagree with me and show me your view on it. This is a questionnaire.

[Vythica]

Actually Edge; I may have some unique insight on this subject. I served 5 years in the United States Air Force. I've been deployed multiple times (to places that I won't disclose here, but may in a PM) for both combat and humanitarian operations. I was slated to deploy to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq in August of 2007. I had previously informed my command of my decision to not participate any further in the occupation of Iraq. Upon receiving orders to occupy the sovereign Republic of Iraq, I refused them.

After trying to remove myself by all "legal" means from the military, and receiving nothing but harassment and non-judicial punishment for my convictions I deserted the Air Force in July of 2007. Now some people call me a coward and a traitor, etc. But I'll point out the legal and moral precedent to do what I did.

The Nuremberg Tribunals held to try war criminals after WWII make it very clear that "just following orders" is not a good excuse for participating either actively or complicitly in war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The UN charter (of which the United States is a signatory and in fact holds a permanent seat on the security council) makes it clear that the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is the "worst" of the war crimes in that within that one are contained all other war crimes. A lot of Americans will tell you that "well, we don't answer to the UN." The fact of the matter is yes we do. Due to the "Supremacy" clause in the Constitution of the United States when a treaty is signed by the President (with the advice and consent of the Senate) it is elevated to "Supreme Law of the Land". Thus making the UN charter "Supreme" law in the United States. I think the dots are starting to be connected now. By invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, the United States broke not only international law, but the people in command of the military also broke US law. And put it's soldiers in a very sticky predicament. Uphold your oath ("to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...") or follow your orders. Some (like myself) chose to uphold the oath in the only way we knew how within the machine that is the US military. We left. I refuse to take part in the illegal occupation of Iraq. I refuse to support it. I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of a corrupt government before the eyes of the world.

The people of Iraq have done nothing to deserve the ill treatment, destruction and chaos that we have created in their country. I'm sorry for the part I played in ruining so many lives. Iraqi and American.

[ArchmagusArcana]

First of all, good for you Vythica for standing up for your convictions. That takes a lot of balls, and for my money, answering to your own conscience takes precedence over any other force trying to exert influence over you, so good for you.

From my perspective, and corroborated by generally accepted evidence, not only did iraq have no connection to the 'terrorists', they actively refused them refuge in their country. By no means was the Iraqi regime decent people, but there were, for better or worse, the legitimate government of the country. Had enough of its citizens asked us for help, MAYBE that would have given some justification to our ill advised insertion into the country. Legal, i still dont think so, but we would have at least had a moral leg to stand on and defend ourselves with.

All major conflicts in which the US has played a part have one thing in common, we get economic and political power out of it. Korea and Vietnam both gave us a chance to set up camp in those countries, the conflict itself and the reasons for fighting it have no bearing at all, we wouldnt have bothered if we had not gotten a chance to insert our interests into theirs. The same can be said of the current situation in Iraq. No on wanted us there, we had no reason to be there, but we used the guise of bringing democracy (democracy at the point of the gun is no democracy at all) to their country as an excuse to put them under our heel and make them rely upon us to rebuild everything that we ruined in the first place.

I recall being heckled and harassed for expressing my view that we were completely wrong in invading a sovereign nation of Iraq (when all this shit first went down) with little more than conjecture and smoke blowing for evidence. When the weapons inspectors turned up nothing i though, 'well, maybe people will listen to reason now'. No, they made up more stories of how Saddam was hiding them some place and they will eventually be found. Was Afghanistan justified, i think yes, as they were harboring people claiming responsibility for the attacks on our soil and refused to give them up. In my mind that is as good as a declaration of war, as far as the law goes, of that i am not certain, but Iraq, no, by no means was that justified.

Are we really fighting terrorism in Iraq? Would you not fight for your home if someone came and invaded it? I damn sure would. Dont get me wrong, i feel for each and every ruined family (both iraqi and american) on both sides of this, but when it comes down to it, [most of] the ones still fighting, are just fighting for their home. I look at it like a hive of bees, you dont mess with them and they will leave you alone, but if you take a swing at that hive and every single bee in that hive is going to come to attack you.

The only thing that i can say about war is that no one wins but the people that risk nothing. Our soldiers, their soldiers, innocents, the people at home getting the phone call that their son or daughter, husband, wife, mother or father has been killed in the line of duty, they all pay the price for what our leaders want, and that perhaps is what makes it all so tragic. Bottom line is, every single war has an more nefarious motive than what is presented to the public, its not black and white by any means, we have to examine all of those reasons before we can determine as the ultimate rules of our so-called democratic country if this is in fact the best course of action.

Perhaps if we went back to the old days where the strongest in the two opposing armies fought to the death, and once one was the victor, the battle was decided, these things would be a bit easier.

Edit: im a bit drunk right now, so if its all jumbled up, i apologize, ill look it over later and make it more readable perhaps. :P

[makarios68]

One of the given reasons for invading Iraq was to help 'stabalise' the Middle East.

This has been a huge failure.

As an ex-soldier myself i kind of feel obliged to make positive noises about our presence there.

But if truth be told, it doesn't feel right to me.

[_dracus_]

I have few advices for you Edge:

- About the help given to poor country. I am convinced that it's not money they need. Generally Organisation tries not to give money to poor country because it goes to the wrong people in the end. It's better giving help to learn them things they don't know, to help them build structure: it can be very little like digging wells into really poor country however access to water is really important. I hope you get the message :-D

- More scholar thing, don't only argue in one way when doing philosophy, you gotta present both side arguments (ok it stupid in this case, but don't forget to present clearly arguments in favor of war)

[-Edge-]

Originally Posted by Vythica

Now some people call me a coward and a traitor, etc. But I'll point out the legal and moral precedent to do what I did.

Well, a coward would not admit that. Thanks for your input, it's very useful You thought for yourself, you didn't let someone else think for you and thousands of other people.

Originally Posted by ArchmagusArcana

When the weapons inspectors turned up nothing i though, 'well, maybe people will listen to reason now'. No, they made up more stories of how Saddam was hiding them some place and they will eventually be found. Was Afghanistan justified, i think yes, as they were harboring people claiming responsibility for the attacks on our soil and refused to give them up. In my mind that is as good as a declaration of war, as far as the law goes, of that i am not certain, but Iraq, no, by no means was that justified.

Yeah, I remember how Bush would practically use that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" line in every sentence. A lot of the reasons of the war in Iraq have come up very weak, or false. I think at one time Bush even said something like "[Saddam] this is the guy that tried to kill my dad" And that's sounds like something you would hear from a child.

Originally Posted by _dracus_

- About the help given to poor country. I am convinced that it's not money they need. Generally Organisation tries not to give money to poor country because it goes to the wrong people in the end. It's better giving help to learn them things they don't know, to help them build structure: it can be very little like digging wells into really poor country however access to water is really important. I hope you get the message :-D

I know it's not only money, I was just using the example where nothing is gained either from food aid but more stall in development. If an LECD was given supplies to build a home, (hopefully) they would use those supplies to build a home, which helps them with building skills, gives them their own property, and from that something they can also sell. I think money should fund those supplies ^^

[Brother-brian]

I am of the mind that it is indeed an orchestrated war, agreed upon by the leaders of the world, including Iraq.

I will leave it at the "global govt conspiracy" level.

Should we have been there in the beginning? I dont think so. But being there now, I think leaving en masse would do more harm than good at this point. Once you fall into a well, theres no dry way to get out.

[DkySven]

Originally Posted by Brother-brian

I am of the mind that it is indeed an orchestrated war, agreed upon by the leaders of the world, including Iraq.

Heh? The Iraqi leaders agreed on getting themself invaded and killed?

[Greyman_tle]

One reason for the Iraq invasion could have been the decision of Iraq's, to start trading thier oil in Euro's not in US Dollars - this would have undermined the value of the US Dollar and, as pundits postulated, caused a Global ressesion.

Well that was avoided nicely then.....

[WhateverUSMC]

Given my screen name, I think it's not surprising that I also have an insight on this subject.

I deployed to Iraq twice (once for the ground war in 2003, and again in 2005), and in between, I was stationed at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, where anyone (ANYONE) injured in theater came for medical care. It was a '5th echelon' hospital, meaning that you didn't go there if yoiu had the sniffles; you went there when you were either dying, or so close to death as makes no difference.

I understand that, in a war, there are casualties, and that they tend to be awful in scale. However, while I was there, a great deal of the casualties were children, children who could only be identified by the horrible screams of pain they were constantly emitting. They quite literally did not look like people, due to the extent of their injuries/burns.

Again, I recognize that casualties are sometimes unavoidable in war, but in order for me to, ok, not 'accept', but maybe understand these things I saw, I need a better excuse than 'Those are our orders'.

So, I came to Canada. My last command was a non-deployable unit; I was in no danger of ever going again, and it probably would have been easier to ride out the rest of my contract in relative safety, but I decided; hells no.

There is no justification for that war, and I'm sorry, but anything anyone says in its defense is sure to be the same moronic stuff that the right wing has been shouting for years.

I leave you with this;

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

-- Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, committed suicide rather than being hanged after the Nuremburg war crimes trial