What if Bush was Right about the Iraq War?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Feb 1, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    A great read for all you libs out there:

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html


    What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

    February 1, 2005

    BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

    Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.



    You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

    Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

    By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

    But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

    It's hard to swallow, isn't it?


    Americans cross own barrier

    If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

    For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

    I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

    Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

    I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.


    Deciding democracy's worth

    On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

    Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

    Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

    Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

    I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

    Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

    Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

    In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

    Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

    And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.


    Penance could be required

    But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

    Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

    Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

    So is the rest of the world.

    For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

    If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

    Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    My only problem with the article is why is the writer assume that the Iraqis are going to oppose our own desires for the region? They are likely to be our biggest supporters because they will want their brothers in the neighboring nations to have the same right they do.
     
  3. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    I'm confused-- the premise that "George Bush may have been right that invading Iraq was a good thing" is muddled. I think invading countries with repressive regimes to free their peoples is always a good thing. I'd bet the majority of Americans would agree... maybe this guy didn't.

    I didn't think that invading Iraq because it may have had WMDs was a good idea-- there were othering terrorists nations that we KNEW had WMDs. In that respect, no, president Bush was not right to invade Iraq, it was a mad thing because we lost billions and billionds and thousands of lives.

    Pre-emptive war = sometimes good, sometimes bad.

    Liberating nations = always good.

    So, despite the fact that the outcome of invasion is, in my opinion, "good", we didn't go to war for those reasons.

    Like I posted elsewhere, if Iraq had been a free nation that harbored terrorists and had WMDs and postured aggresively towards the United States, we still would have invaded (i contend);

    If Iraq had been a repressed nation that we knew had no WMDs (like so many other countries we're not invading), we would not have invaded.

    Ergo, George Bush went to war to secure his people, not to free Iraqis, which become a favorable byproduct of "pre-emptive war". Ergo, George Bush was "wrong", but good things came of it despite this.
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Bush was "wrong" to go to war to secure his people???? I know you dont mean that the way it sounds....
     
  5. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    In this particular instance-- Iraq had no WMDs and no reconstituted nuclear program, and no working relationship with al Qaeda (even if al Qaeda operatives existed inside the country.

    We don't need to argue whether these are true-- I know the arguments "for" WMDs and a collaborative relationship with al Qaeda; I'm saying under this premise pre-emptive war was wrong.
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Nope, not if Bush truly believed that Iraq had WMD and they had reconstituted their nuclear weapon program and there were ties to Al Qaeda. I would far prefer that our government err on the side of our nation's safety than the other way around.

    While hindsight gives you an advantage here, the decision was made in a context that did not have that advantage.

    The argument as to whether the intelligence available at the time was true or not is a whole different discussion.
     
  7. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Or if information was datamined.

    I would prefer the government err on the side of the safety of people everywhere rather than the *potential* (very unlikely) harm to Americans.

    Or if you believe that sacrificing 10s of thousands or foreigners (free or otherwise) is worth (possibly) defending an equal number of Americans. I do not think it is.
     
  8. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    I do not believe one drop of an American soldier's blood is worth any number of those foriegners....but then I am not in charge....
     
  9. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Thank goodess you're not.
     
  10. CivilLiberty
    Offline

    CivilLiberty Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    821
    Thanks Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hollywood
    Ratings:
    +50

    But...on who's dime? Do we go about freeing all the repressed nations while our own economic situation and spiraling national debt and plummeting dollar are causing our own serious problems?


    Remember France's king Louis the 16th? he bankrolled the American revolution - his assistance freed us from the tyranny of British rule. But "liberating us" bankrupted his France, and that was one of the significant factors that led to the French revolution where he had his head removed by guillotine.



    A
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page