Iraq war worth the cost?

Well, some grim and unsurprising news today, in Iraq:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16297707

A wave of apparently co-ordinated bomb attacks in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has killed at least 63 people and injured around 185, say officials.

The interior ministry told the BBC 14 blasts hit various locations, including al-Amil in the south and Halawi and Karrada closer to the centre.

The bombings are the worst in months - and follow the withdrawal of US troops.
Click to expand...
 
Pardalis said:
What "occupation" are the "freedom fighters" fighting now?
Click to expand...

I guess they are fighting the regime imposed upon them by a system they don't believe in (i.e democracy), after all they've been shown by the coalition of the willing that if you have a leader you can't remove democratically (which they can't) then you should depose them by force.
 
NoahFence said:
Just let them blow each other to hell. It's what they've always wanted to do in the Middle East anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure, whatever, but it would be a shame to leave the people of Iraq in worse shape than when they were toiling under Saddam's regime.
 
The Don said:
I guess they are fighting the regime imposed upon them by a system they don't believe in (i.e democracy), after all they've been shown by the coalition of the willing that if you have a leader you can't remove democratically (which they can't) then you should depose them by force.
Click to expand...

Your logic is way too contrived.
 
The Don said:
Sure, whatever, but it would be a shame to leave the people of Iraq in worse shape than when they were toiling under Saddam's regime.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, there's little we can do to ensure we don't leave them that way. That's the problem with going to war, the unintended consequences can be a bitch and beyond control. The Iraqis will have to figure it out now. God damn the politicians who chose to put them in this predicament.
 
citizenzen said:
Unfortunately, there's little we can do to ensure we don't leave them that way. That's the problem with going to war, the unintended consequences can be a bitch and beyond control. The Iraqis will have to figure it out now. God damn the politicians who chose to put them in this predicament.
Click to expand...

Yes, it also puts those who argued the immorality of inaction in a difficult fix.

Before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it was argued that while the war would no doubt cause a number of casualties it is not good enough for the anti-war people to simply be happy enough that they didn't go to war. Because those people would have to be responsible for the deaths under Saddam Hussein caused by not overthrowing him. They have moral culpability for seeking to keep a viscious dictator in place.

But now, as the Coalition forces leave Iraq and leave the country in the hands of psychopathic sectarian suicide bombers, instead of one pyschopathic dictator, then we are now told that that's what the Iraqis want. They just want to blow each other up. Their fault. Sucks to be them. Nothing to be done about. At least we got rid of Saddam and they're free to blow each other up. Those erstwhile victims of repression are now just irresponsible, ungrateful idiots who we did our best to help but were, in the end, unworthy of it.
 
The Don said:
I guess they are fighting the regime imposed upon them by a system they don't believe in (i.e democracy), after all they've been shown by the coalition of the willing that if you have a leader you can't remove democratically (which they can't) then you should depose them by force.
Click to expand...

Soooo, they blow up markets?
 
funk, if the war in Iraq was a farce, why aren't I laughing?

Farces are supposed to be funny.
 
Virus said:
Soooo, they blow up markets?
Click to expand...
Virus:

Been doing sort of thing since at least August of 2003, which is also when the UN HQ in Baghdad got a nice bomb for a present. The UN went scurrying off for a while.

Bombs of the sort in the latest report have been going off since 2003, some weeks more, some weeks less, depending upon ... a lot.

Nothing new under the sun.

Or as I was once heard to remark ...

"What was that, Major? A car bomb in Buquba and mortars falling on the airfield in Balad? Ops normal, Groundhog day."

Groundhog day continues, it seems, with no Bill Murray jokes to make anyone laugh.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Bombs of the sort in the latest report have been going off since 2003, some weeks more, some weeks less, depending upon ... a lot.
Click to expand...

But back then it was to fight the Evil Occupation! Now what are those valiant freedom fighters fighting against?
 
angrysoba said:
Before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it was argued that while the war would no doubt cause a number of casualties it is not good enough for the anti-war people to simply be happy enough that they didn't go to war. Because those people would have to be responsible for the deaths under Saddam Hussein caused by not overthrowing him. They have moral culpability for seeking to keep a viscious dictator in place.
Click to expand...


I could not disagree with you more. Do you seriously think that people who advocate peace are responsible for deaths because they didn't invade a country? Lately headlines have been talking about thousands of Syrians dead in that country's unrest. Have you openly and vociferously advocated for invading Syria? I hope so. Otherwise, by your logic, those deaths are your fault.
 
citizenzen said:
I could not disagree with you more. Do you seriously think that people who advocate peace are responsible for deaths because they didn't invade a country? Lately headlines have been talking about thousands of Syrians dead in that country's unrest. Have you openly and vociferously advocated for invading Syria? I hope so. Otherwise, by your logic, those deaths are your fault.
Click to expand...

Please blame bad writing on my part.

It was largely supposed to be ironic or at least heavily sarcastic.

What I was saying was that there are a lot of people who call themselves "humanitarian interventionists" who, when told that such and such a course of action is reckless and likely to lead to much greater bloodshed than is currently happening respond that inaction is the greater moral evil and that "realist" policies are unprincipled.

But now, I think we will see the conviction going out of many humanitarian interventionists for the cause in Iraq as the reality has ended up rather brutally steal-rollering their principles.

And yes, Syria is a good example where humanitarian interventionists have very cold feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom