Thread for Opponents of Iraq War: "Why"?

[Zygote]

As implied by the title, this thread should hopefully involve only 'Iraq War'(IW) opponents.

More specifically, im particularly interested in answers from social democrats, libertarian-democracy supporters, modern liberals, democracy advocates, mixed economy believers and central planning proponents.

Im trying to gauge whether or not the lack of support for this war is due to principle or management specifically. In effect, someone who thinks that would Bill or Hilary be in charge their support would change.

My personal view is this war is wrong because democracy is inherently wrong and does not provide freedom. I disagree with the entire idea of "civil democratic rights". I believe "nation building" is also inherently wrong and a bureaucracy can never work for any people in such a way. This implies my other belief that central planning is economically flawed.

The only way this war couldve worked in my opinion is if the entire country was privatized, not through a bureaucracy, but through appropriation of state resources to the private owners, Iraqi tax payers.

Furthermore, the war would have to have been funded privately.

Without these conditions i cant see us actually granting more freedom anywhere.

So in essence, im trying to find people who disagree with my principle but don't support the democratic and nation-building principles of the Iraq war.


Speak up.....

[Taso]

I support the principles of it, and I support democracy. I'm not entirely a fan of this war though, because I think in the end the US will just pull out, and it will all be a waste. The American people don't have the attention span needed for important wars anymore.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I support the principles of it, and I support democracy. I'm not entirely a fan of this war though, because I think in the end the US will just pull out, and it will all be a waste. The American people don't have the attention span needed for important wars anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think were the principles we fought for? What made this war an "important war"?

[sightless]

Eliminating a ruthless dictator is a good thing in principle, however it was not done properly in the case of Iraqi war:/

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Eliminating a ruthless dictator is a good thing in principle, however it was not done properly in the case of Iraqi war:/

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume the principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and avoiding preemptive aggression are not good things.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I support the principles of it, and I support democracy. I'm not entirely a fan of this war though, because I think in the end the US will just pull out, and it will all be a waste. The American people don't have the attention span needed for important wars anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think were the principles we fought for? What made this war an "important war"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The principle, as I see it, is that all people should be free, and not subject to a dictator, and the Iraqis needed help to achieve this. What's that qoute, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ? - MLK? Something like that.

This war is important because it attempts to establish a stable democracy in a Muslim country.

[AzDesertRat]

The war was a mistake because the intricacies of creating a power vacuum in the heart of the middle east had consequences and these consequences were seemingly brushed aside and not brought forward by the war planners and now we are seeing them. Anyone saying that this is about removing a dictator has been drinking too much of the party kool aid. Why not take out Castro--he's much smaller and only 90 miles away. Think about how much money we could have saved.

And fwiw, there is a [now not-so stable] democracy in the middle east--that would be Lebanon. Unfortunately, we let Israel bomb the [censored] of them and now Hezbulla is a much stronger force than it was prewar. GW and company thought it was a good idea because they thought it would weaken Hezbulla--instead it did the complete opposite. Again immediate goals are sacrificed for long term results.

This is our new foreign policy these days

Worst foreign policy EVER

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]

The principle, as I see it, is that all people should be free, and not subject to a dictator, and the Iraqis needed help to achieve this. What's that qoute, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ? - MLK? Something like that.

This war is important because it attempts to establish a stable democracy in a Muslim country.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it really ok to spread our ideology on other countries with an armed force? I thought we got involved in a couple wars during the Cold War to stop other countries from doing that very same thing and those wars didn't go over so well either. I'm not sure it should be our role to go into other countries and tell them how they should live.

President Bush said in 1999 that our troops should not be used for nation building projects and they should be used to fight and win wars and overthrow dictators when it's in our best interests. That mission was accomplished 4 years ago so why are we still over there?

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
This war is important because it attempts to establish a stable democracy in a Muslim country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq certainly wasn't a Muslim run country. If it is after the war, that's our own doing. And do we really care about democracy when the people the countries lelect don't like us? The whole democracy farce is very transparent when you take a look at our history and our current friends.

Myself, I was against the war from the start. You can't just go into another country and expect to take them over. ESPECIALLY one that's surrounded by our enemies. What the hell did we THINK was going to happen? Iran and Syria were just going to sit there while we took the oil and established bases? Of COURSE they are going to undermine our effort. Any country int he world would.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
But is it really ok to spread our ideology on other countries with an armed force? I thought we got involved in a couple wars during the Cold War to stop other countries from doing that very same thing and those wars didn't go over so well either. I'm not sure it should be our role to go into other countries and tell them how they should live.


[/ QUOTE ]

We didn't tell them how they should live, we gave them options. An extremly high % of Iraqi's voted in their first election, I think the number was around 75% or so, despite the threat of death. That is more than the % of Americans that voted in our last Presidential election. They had democracy for what, a year, maybe, and they utilize it better than a people that have had it for 230 years. They made the choice to vote in their elections, an indication that they do want democracy - it isn't being forced.

And what wars in during the Cold War are you referring to? Korea rings a bell, that was when the United Nations (United States) succesfully stopped N. Korea from taking over S. Korea, and now South Korea has a great economy, and a civilized city, compared to N. Korea which is filled with starved people living in extreme poverty. Vietnam, again, goes back to my point about Americans not being able to stay dedicated when the going gets tough, and losing the war because of that.