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

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,734
172
One recent report cites

By a 54-44 percent margin, the 1,004 adults polled by telephone August 5-7 said the Iraq War was a mistake
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050809/ts_alt_afp/usiraqpoll [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like iron filings to a magnet.... intelligence is drawn to truth.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
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.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
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:
Hurkyl said:
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.
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.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here
I'm mainly just venting that nobody ever seems to consider these topics when they're trying to make a case against war.


But how are those effects worse than the innocent life lost and the infrastructure destroyed from the 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.
 
224
2
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.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
Hurkyl said:
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.
Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.
 
arildno said:
Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.
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.
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
594
90
arildno said:
Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.
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!
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
Lisa! said:
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!
Hmm..can I be allowed to mention the Nazis again, Lisa!?
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
594
90
arildno said:
Hmm..can I be allowed to mention the Nazis again, Lisa!?
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:
 
K

kyleb

Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
594
90
kyleb said:
Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.
I don't know what would happen to you when arildno sees your post.
 
Hurkyl said:
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.
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.
 
50
0
kyleb said:
Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.
He was refering to the war AGAINST the nazis.That is a good thing right?
 
224
2
Hardly. A war in which millions of people die on every side is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
 
K

kyleb

Lisa! said:
I don't know what would happen to you when arildno sees your post.
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?
 
K

kyleb

kaos said:
He was refering to the war AGAINST the nazis.That is a good thing right?
Obviously it was good to stop the Nazis, but I can't consider the war itself a good thing by any means.
 
50
0
Yeah wars aint a good thing. But in all, it was necessary.
 
In what way is war productive?

no matter how you look at it... everyone loses. one might say that one country gains power over another, however the sum total of the value on earth has been diminished. Morale of people, Land, resources, and last but not least, lives. Where is the good?

Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried. Temper tantrums are for kids.
 
K

kyleb

I take it you didn't see Halliburton's latest quarterly profits?
 
I knew someone was going to bring up stock markets and finances... you know i didn't mean this type of productivity... companies in the business of war and supplying for war will benefit... but it's not to the benefit of the world... so take your yin-yang and spin along cassidy :rofl:
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
In what way is war productive? ... Where is the good?
Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.


Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried.
Giving up can be worse than war.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,734
172
Hurkyl said:
I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.
The justification used to invade was that Iraq was an imminent threat the US security. So maybe you favor taking UN law into our own hands and spiting our allies, but this was not good enough for US law. We have this little thing called the constitution.

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)
Oh, the resentment is greatly reduced now. :rolleyes:

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.
I don't see that it applies in either case, as stated.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Top Threads

Top