Is liberating Iraq such a noble cause?

Forgive me if something like this has been discussed before. I tried searching to see if I could find anything, but I couldn't. Even though due to the subject, I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, sometime, but damned if I could find where

OK.

The point about liberating Iraq. The original premise of the war was of course changed when it became clear that it was unlikely we would find any WMDs there. Then it became about liberating the Iraqi people, or removing a 'brutal dictator' from power. It seems as though that is thrown around now as if no one can argue against that.

But can they?

Is it just me, or is that not a cause worth sacrificing American lives for? I understand that Sadaam is bad, and I understand that given the choice, almost everyone would want him and his regime out of the picture. But it wasn't a simple choice. It was something that took (and is still taking) American lives to accomplish. Is it worth that? My answer is no.

I think someone said it best, when they were referring to an old Vietnam quote I believe, and applied to the Iraq situation. Why should young Americans do what young Iraqis should be doing? Why should we have to liberate them? I know some will say that the Iraqi people had no power and were no match for Sadaam's army, but I don't believe that. If there is enough support for overthrowing a government, people will find a way. Do you think the world would have given "Americans" much of a chance against the British when we won our Independence? There are countless examples of that throughout history. Those people may have not had the numbers, or the military might, but they did have heart. And that goes a long way to fighting for your own freedom (assuming you want that to begin with).

While liberating Iraqis may be a 'noble' cause, it should not be our fight. That excuse should not be thrown out there, as if it is unquestionable. It should be questioned. I would rather have those Americans back alive, because that is not our fight. It's the Iraqi people's fight.

Are we now going to continue on and liberate all the people of the world? Of course not. So why use that excuse as if THAT is an acceptable reason to go to war, when the other excuses they have given have been shot down?

Tough question. Very tough question.

Largely depends on your morals. If you believe helping people is a noble cause, then the answer is yes. However, you have to look at the situation from a big-picture view. Let's face it, you can't help others if you can't help yourself. America is in no condition to help the rest of the world, nor does it ahve any idea how to.

You also have to look at what your definition of "help" is. To many Americans, "help" means forcing our culture, our way of life, which we revere and adore so much, upon others. It may seem like we're doing a favor, but good things aren't always suitable for everyone. Also, if it's for the sake of freedom, forcing "freedom" upon others is not freedom at all!

So it's a very gray question. Helping people is great, but from where does it stop being help and instead become tyranny? And if you can't help yourself or know how to be of help, then how can you help at all?

Good question.

Another question is who are we helping by freeing Iraq? The common Iraqi or the wealthy Iraqi land owner....

Absolutely. That is what Heroic Iraqi Resistance is doing and succeeding.

Like other members have said all ready it depends from which side your are looking at the "liberation".

I saw in the news yesterday the children from the wealthy bathing in swimming pools and talking about how they want to come to US and go to the schools here, and how happy that their doctors and other high educated parents was happy with the "liberation"

But then again the poor and more in quantity children in the street also have dreams but they don't have the money to pursue those dreams.

Very sad indeed.

It apparently became one after the WMD's weren't found. In fact, it became the chief focus for going in the first place all of a sudden.

We didn't seem to mind his treatement of the Iraqi people during the 80's when we sent Rumsfeld to Iraq to sell him the WMD's he would eventually use on the Kurds...at the time we hated Iran even more and decided to use our puppet strings to pit one against the other.

Now, all of a sudden, with no proof of WMD's or involvement in 9/11 he is a ruthless dictator (true) who we need to liberate his people from. Hypocrisy of the highest order. But few Americans know their history beyond the last 2 years if that so who cares.

And yet the fact remains that 18 of the hijackers were Saudi's...hmmmmm...

Originally posted by Weller
And yet the fact remains that 18 of the hijackers were Saudi's...hmmmmm...

Yeah..................but the saudis are "our friends" never mind that their rule is corrupt and as opressive as Sadam rule.

The cause for war in Iraq has always been ignoble, no matter whether it was branded on some media image of a "war on terror" or "liberation".

Iraq, a sovereign state, had a leader deposed by the foreign incursion of a superior military force. The invader had previously given full support and provided weaponry to the very same leader. Liberation was never the goal, but neo-con global domination policy and short term economic gain crony capitalism was - pure and simple.

Iraq has not been "liberated".

Saddam Hussein has not been brought to justice.

Smokescreens.

Every "anti-terrorism" and "liberation" action taken by the Bush administration has at its base highly corrupt and criminal intent.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Weller
And yet the fact remains that 18 of the hijackers were Saudi's...hmmmmm...

Yeah..................but the saudis are "our friends" never mind that their rule is corrupt and as opressive as Sadam rule.

Silly me!

I don't know, it's just sad. It's sad to see Americans lose their lives, or watch them be permanently disabled, because they are fighting to liberate other people. I don't know if there is a greater or more honorable sacrifice than giving your life for your country, but they are giving their lives for another country. This is not their cause. Our forefathers valiantly gave their lives so that we could enjoy the lives we live today, and it's like those Americans that lost their lives over there are getting the short end of the stick. They aren't getting to reap the rewards of our forefathers' effort to ensure our freedom; instead, they are doing what the Iraqi people should be doing themselves. If they want freedom, they should be the ones fighting for it.

Maybe that comes off as cold? I'm not sure. I don't mean it to be that way, it's just an unfortunate situation all around. Knowing what our ancestors sacrificed to allow us to live the lives we do today, it's hard for me to advocate us doing the same for other people. It's their cause -- not our's.

PS - Reading back thru my msg, I could see how someone could take it as me insulting the troops or something, but it's not like that. In fact, they are probably even more courageous (in my mind) due to the fact they are risking their lives to liberate people who otherwise would have little or no effect on their lives. It's not like they are fighting for their family or friends, or fellow Americans -- they are fighting for the Iraqi people.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

W_HAMILTON,

You are so right and the way you bring this issue is the same way some of us think, but people are blind and they really believe that our soldiers are dying for our freedom in a war that they believe is justify and some still believe that the war in Iraq is because Sadam was responsible of 9/11, and they have forgotten Afghanistan and bin-laden.

So you see how confuse and misinformed people can be. These people prefer to believe all those lies in order to keep the present administration perfect.

.
It is a noble cause. But please forgive me for being unnoble and pragmatic.

The FACT of the matter is liberating Iraq was a LAST DITCH EXCUSE when all the other rationales melted away.

I wish good things for the rest of the world, but that is not what our government was elected to do. Of course it wasn't elected to pander and wh*re for corporate America at the expense of the average American, but it does that too.

The Iraq policy needs to be sent back the 'returns and exchanges' department.
[While we're at it lets get America working for working Americans and not bloodsucking big corporations].
.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Iraq, a sovereign state, had a leader deposed by the foreign incursion of a superior military force. The invader had previously given full support and provided weaponry to the very same leader. Liberation was never the goal, but neo-con global domination policy and short term economic gain crony capitalism was - pure and simple.

So true! For most US people, "Occupation" = "Liberation", while for Iraqi people "Liberation" == "Occupation".