Question for War supporters

this may be easier to answer:

Is it unpatriotic to question the president's Iraq policy while troops are still fighting there?

 

You need to clarify what you're asking.

What do you define as a "war supporter" and also do you mean what the original mission was or what the current mission is?

 

That's a narrow definition. Some who oppose the war think the troops should remain for the time being. If any of this was simple, we wouldn't be debating the whole nightmare so much.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

To bring democracy to an unstable region. I don't think its so much about the oil but putting a strategic permant base in the middle east.

 

permanent US base in Iraq = democracy??



Either I don't follow your logic, or your definition of "democracy" is different than mine.

 

I think his argument is that a stable democratic Iraq would allow for a stable base of support in the Middle East. The argument is that by creating a strategic ally in the middle east, the US could better promote democracy throughout the middle east and strengthen US influence in the region.

I don't necessarily agree that this optimistic view is feasible but that's generally been a big argument of supporters for the war.

 

Oh, I don't know, maybe the democratic elections that have been held?

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

They are moving towards accomplishing their mission. It is incredibly ridiculous how the libs think that this can just go poof and happen in a very short timeframe. A transition this dramatic will take time and will have bumps in the road.

In my opinion, the goal of the Iraq piece of the War on Terror is twofold:

1) Root out instability in the region by taking out Saddam, who was a considerable de-stabilizing force
2) Begin to reverse the trend of radical Islam breeding terror.

This process will happen over time, and over that period of time, the TROOPS deserve our support -- not the endless string of criticisms and doom and gloom from the libs. That's no way to support a soldier who is risking his life for your own well being.

 

Yes, I have certainly heard this argument. However, I am just trying to clarfiy the point that "creating a strategic ally" is not necessarily the same thing as "promoting democracy." Perpetuating the idea that these two ideas are one in the same, IMO is part of the reason the US is unable to clearly delineate what exactly constitutes "winning the war."

In other words, what would happen if a democratic government in Iraq decided not to bow to US interests in the region? There exist democracies in the world that are not allies of the US. There also exist allies of the US that are not in any way democracies.

 

Great, well if you won't read my posts and are willing to reveal that your entire purpose behind starting this thread was to complain and throw out old, tired platitudes like 'being lied to', then feel free to continue talking to yourself. You are not worth my time.

 

Radical Islam wasn't a problem in Iraq before we invaded. Creating animosity toward the US by the invasion has increased that threat. Saddam was brutal SOB but he was contained through sanctions. I think the region is much more unstable now.

I just cannot see how we are better off now or how it's getting better.

 

Well, you didn't exactly answer the question. Your two objectives were:

"1) Root out instability in the region by taking out Saddam, who was a considerable de-stabilizing force
2) Begin to reverse the trend of radical Islam breeding terror. "

#1 is done. Yet we are still there.

#2 might be one of the most ambiguous objectives I have ever heard. How will we know when we have begun to reverse a trend? Has this happened already? Or has the fact that the Iraq war has proved to be an effective recruiting tool for Al Qaeda actually moved us farther from objective #2?

 

Whoa whoa, slow down there... I like the enthusiasm but lets not get carried away. I agree with the first goal but the second goal seems really questionable. The link between Iraq and major terrorism organizations still hasn't been proven to any substantial degree. The fact that the administration based this argument on the idea that one extremely lower level member of Al Qaeda might have gone through Iraq (with no confirmation of communication with Saddam) proves that the link between the two doesn't exist. If anything, many of these groups have a greater presence in Iraq now than before. Making governments in Saudi Arabia or Iran more accountable would do more to decrease the ability of radical fundamentalists to expand networks of terror.

Now as for your second claim that criticism of troops is bad. This argument still hasn't persuaded me despite the fact that people like you seem to invoke it on a daily basis. These aren't criticisms of our troops but a criticism of policy. These arent demands to withdraw but rather questions as to what our mission is and what the status of that is. Azadre asked a reasonable question and it makes no sense to just attack him for asking that. You can't answer a question by attacking the person. That just makes you look silly.

Another thing to note is that criticism is beneficial. Its a way of holding government accountable. Think about it this way. Would we have known about Abu Ghraib if it weren't for the public and media criticism of the government's interrogation and detention practices. How do you expect to find out about some questionable military tactics that violate basic principles that you purportedly uphold. Shutting down criticism inherently builds up government secrecy which is in opposition to liberty and democracy. Its ok to question government policy sometimes, even if the military is involved.