Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

  1. Aug 21, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One recent report cites

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050809/ts_alt_afp/usiraqpoll

    Sen Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, just on Meet the Press, said that in 17 town halls around the state, people are expressing the desire to cut and run.

    So, people are finally starting to realize what we got ourselves into here. Well, its a little too late now [strong desire to use highly derogatory language here].

    The war was based on a lie and has made the US less safe by focusing on the wrong problem. The administration has continued to lie every time it claims that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq; well, they were until we made the country a breeding ground for terrorists. But now if we cut and run we would leave a disaster behind that would certainly destabilize the entire Middle East. This is exactly why so many of us opposed this war so vehemently before the invasion. I never complained once about invading Afghanistan, but Iraq was a sucker's play, and now we own it.

    I think we have two lessons to be learned here:

    Never start a war unless given no options - the so called strategy of preemtive strikes is like putting Cleo in charge of the national interests.

    Never elect an oil man.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 21, 2005 #2
    Like iron filings to a magnet.... intelligence is drawn to truth.
     
  4. Aug 21, 2005 #3

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It would be disastrous if the US now leaves Iraq.
    They've gotten themselves into a serpents' nest; they have the responsibility to contain the problems to Iraq, even if that means they will be bitten.
     
  5. Aug 21, 2005 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.

    Another interesting point surfaced after the invasion: the economic sanctions (y'know, the popular alternative to invasion) had been fairly effective at destroying the country. (and at breeding resentment of the West)

    It bothers me that these issues never come up when people make these vehement posts about how bad it is to go to war. You can't look at it in a vacuum: I care little for narrow opinions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2005
  6. Aug 21, 2005 #5
    I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here, maybe that it is a good thing that we went to war with Iraq? As for Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors, this hardly justifies a full scale war unless it was the case that Saddam was secretly stocking up for an attack, or to aid terrorists in attacks against the US. With evidence, I believe these scenarios allow for preemptive strike. The available evidence (and counter-evidence) never justified a preemptive strike at the time it occurred. It can be argued that intelligence was, um, distorted to justify a war that may have been legitimately justifiable at a later time (but probably not).

    As for the economic sanctions, I also thought this was a terrible policy, and we all know the effects it had. But how are those effects worse than the innocent life lost and the infrastructure destroyed from the war? And does the current war somehow diminish the mid east's resentment of the west? What is narrow about this viewpoint? The whole situation was a big mess, and now it's an even bigger mess, initiated on false pretenses.
     
  7. Aug 21, 2005 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm mainly just venting that nobody ever seems to consider these topics when they're trying to make a case against war.


    On the assumption that reconstruction will be at full steam in a reasonable amount of time, we have this fact:

    War is a one-time loss of life and infrastructure.
    Continued sanctions are a prolonged loss of life and infrastructure.


    For example, compare it taking 5 years for reconstruction to begin in earnest after the war vs 15 years of continued economic sanctions before Iraq starts playing nice and can begin to rebuild. The damage of 15 years of stagnation and decay could easily be more than the damage done during the war, and even if it's not, it's still 10 years behind the war scenario on rebuilding the nation.

    This is, of course, a hypothetical: it may or may not be what would come to pass. Maybe Saddam would have capitulated in a month or two, and not invading would appear to be a much better course of action. Or, maybe Saddam resists for 15 years and suffers a war (either with the U.N., or a civil war), and thus continued sanctions would lead to a much, much worse outcome.

    But my point is that it's not a cut and dried "War bad, no war good!" situation, and it rather irritates me when people put on the blinders and pretend that it is.
     
  8. Aug 21, 2005 #7
    It's a shame so many people had to die before the people realised their bloodlust was unfounded. Unfortunately, this is exactly what I expected.
     
  9. Aug 21, 2005 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Absolutely correct!
    But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.
     
  10. Aug 21, 2005 #9
    Damn straight and that is also why we have that organization known as the UN which is mandated with finding solutions WITHOUT war.

    Might be an idea to fully utilize them next time.
     
  11. Aug 21, 2005 #10

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Could you please name some of good wars? I asked this question but none of you gave me an example. I know some of wars were neccessary but I don't know which!
     
  12. Aug 21, 2005 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hmm..can I be allowed to mention the Nazis again, Lisa!?
     
  13. Aug 21, 2005 #12

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have to yes since you're yelling at me again! :uhh: But I think you support the war against Afganistan too, am I wrong? :wink:
     
  14. Aug 21, 2005 #13
    Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.
     
  15. Aug 21, 2005 #14

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know what would happen to you when arildno sees your post.
     
  16. Aug 21, 2005 #15
    I see your point, but in this instance I don't think the options were limited to 'sanctions or war.' What's more, is that even though we did decide to invade, things could be much better than they are, but because of a lack of priorities, it's a mess. Maybe war was the answer, but not this way.
     
  17. Aug 21, 2005 #16
    He was refering to the war AGAINST the nazis.That is a good thing right?
     
  18. Aug 21, 2005 #17
    Hardly. A war in which millions of people die on every side is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
     
  19. Aug 21, 2005 #18
    You were looking for "good wars" in the sense of wars that brought good and not wars that were good to put a stop to, right?
     
  20. Aug 21, 2005 #19
    Obviously it was good to stop the Nazis, but I can't consider the war itself a good thing by any means.
     
  21. Aug 21, 2005 #20
    Yeah wars aint a good thing. But in all, it was necessary.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late
  1. War in Iraq, What now? (Replies: 11)

  2. War too easy? (Replies: 19)

Loading...