A Pro Iraq War Challenge

I Love Jet Noise has posted the challenge from Orin Kerr.

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

OK, can do. Nothing incredibly prophetic, but will give it a shot.

1. Do I think it is a good idea? Yes. Very much so. When I first listened to the 2003 SOTU, I heard WMD, and keep Saddam from becoming an imminent threat. What ran through my mind was the brutality of the regime, the thousands of children dying every year, how sanctions had been worthless, Saddam’s support of terrorism, his adventurism, and how he could cause a huge ME war if a WMD, traced to Iraq, went off in Israel. And children starving and dying.

2. The negative stories tick me off to no end. We have become a nation polarized, where it is either gloom and doom, or completely upbeat. War is difficult. Some things go well, some do not. We should hear both sides, and not be afraid to have frank discussions when the chips are down. But the good news should be out there in the Big Media. Hey, I have never really cared for FoxNews. A tendency to rely on long stories, and silly stuff (the exact reason I gave up on US News and World Report.) But, I do not want to hear the gloom on CNN or MSNBC first thing in the morning, thank you very much. Let me hear some good things, like schools opening in Iraq, and the utilities coming back on-line.

3. My specific measure is if Iraq is having free elections 5, 10, 20 years from now. Ones where candidates are able to speak their minds, and people aren’t afraid to vote. If the Iraqi people do not like us, fine. As long as they are an example for the other ME countries, and they aren’t a State that actively supports terrorism.

Can we accomplish the mission? That will be up to the Iraqi people. Let’s give them the support that they deserve, as fellow human beings, who should have the chance for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Lord knows they need it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “A Pro Iraq War Challenge”

  1. Interim Report — Day 1 of the Blogosphere Challenge:

    I’ve received lots of great responses to my three questions about Iraq. In case you haven’t seen the initial post, here are the three questions I posed to the the pro-war blo…

  2. FK says:

    We managed to bring about the fall of the USSR by containment and economic pressure. That was a repressive, murderous regime. How many Americans died in the effort? Libya, a better comparison, has come around from containment and economic pressure. How many Americans died in that effort? There was NO compelling reason to invade Iraq – no WMD, no links to Al-Quaida. Saddam was no threat to us and in fact was a counterbalance to a greater threat- the Iranians. George Bush senior knew this. Have you noticed him speaking out in favor of this war? Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get.
    Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans’ hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.

  3. William Teach says:

    Well, FK, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, and, I personally wish that that is the route we could have gone. But, Iraq is different from the USSR, and 12 years of sanctions did not work. We could not have bankruppted them like we did to the Russkies, especially not with France, Germany, Russia, and the UN providing Saddam with money through OFF. And many other reasons.

  4. Sara says:

    Alright, my experience concept of wether the War in Iraq is justified is one that is limited, and although I do care, a tend to be straddling the fence on the issue. I am in desperate need of some pro-war advocates to write a paper for my philosophy class giving both sides of the issue. The only problem is that I have not found compelling enough arguments to really get me going on a pro-war veiw, and I would appricate it if someone could possibly convince me that this War in Iraq was above all other things unavoidable and necessary for the sake of human kind.

  5. j plant says:

    The Cold war, was won by containment including what you mentioned but also by stopping them overseas as for the cost, well lets see. approx 180000 from 1945 till 1991 I think that Iraq is no where near as costly. Libya changed their tune due to us invading Iraq and Afghanistan, remember?

  6. Anti-War says:

    Back in 2002, pro-war mocked and ridiculed anti-war critics who warned that our invasion of Iraq would spawn chaos and anarchy in that country, would allow Al Qaeda to operate freely, would trigger dangerous regional instability among Iraq’s neighbors, and would unleash vicious sectarian tensions and lead to endless, violent civil wars.

    All of that has happened.

    Why stay? Why even begin something you have no right to begin?

    Countries that internationally oppose the war: Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland

    Why should we withdraw? Wouldn’t american’s PR go down?

    Adherence by the U.S. and the other great powers to the UN Charter and to other international treaties to which they are legally bound is not a choice but a legal obligation; exercising military power in violation of the UN Charter undermines the rule of law and is illegal vigilantism on an international scale.

    U.S., once again you are being the bully, not the savior. Pull out now.

    “When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.” – Pope John Paul II

  7. Mark says:

    Nice blog and nice discussion

    I think you guys might want to take a look at this underreported story from two people intimately involved in prewar Iraq intelligence. Some interesting revelations…



  8. Kathy Harstead says:

    No links between Saddam and al Qaeda?

    Those are the comments of someone totally ignorant or totally dishonest. Neither one is excusable for making definitive comments such as the one above.

    Please take an INTELLECTUALLY HONEST look at the http://www.regimeofterror.com site and http://www.husseinandterror.com.

    Whether or not we should have invaded is a fair question and increasingly less partisan but flat out lying or pretending to “know” Saddam had “no links” to al Qaeda is just choosing ignorance.

  9. Axel G says:

    There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. High ranking officials such as David Kay, the leader of the Iraqi survey group, and even President Bush have said no WMDs have been found. After resigning as the top weapons inspector, David Kay admits that he “doesn’t think they exist”. While some claims have said weapons have been found, those weapons were made in the first gulf war and because of the short shelf life, are of no harm to anyone, and even if they were, Iraq has no means of delivering them to their target. So how do you stop an “imminent threat” when the threat has no weapons to do anything with?

  10. jack h says:

    Saddam was not supporting terrorists as he was a secular leader. He was one of the few regimes in the Middle East that was secular and had few allies due to that. Therefore, he did not support the terrorists that attacks the WTC and ignited the War on Terror.

    Not all Iraqis want democracy and not all Iraqis are terrorists. According to the Delaware Watch blog, “43% of Iraqis believe our presence has made their personal security and their nation’s prospect for peace worse” and “a full 45% of Iraqis believe that attacks against the occupiers (us) are justified.”

    Ergo, us exporting democracy to a Middle Eastern country has made them sub sequentially worse than under Saddam previously. There is not an American trying to jump out of every foreigner.


  11. Axel G says:

    There is no 9/11 Iraq connection. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Al Qaeda was responsible for what happened on 9/11 and had no links to Saddam. Al Qaeda and Saddam in fact hated each other, because of religious beliefs, and Saddam was trying to keep Al Qaeda out of Iraq, because of the terrorism they cause. Almost all of the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, and none were from Iraq. After an investigation the September 11th commission found no “collaborative relationship” between the two. So if we want to fight the war on terrorism and get the “bad people” responsible we should be focusing on the Al Qaeda terrorist group that we helped form and not on Iraq.

  12. To be honest, these are very old arguments, which we will not agree on. I wonder though, being that this is over 3 years old, where were you two directed from?

Pirate's Cove