Defending our freedom

  • Bookmark and Share

This came up recently, and I'm sure many times in the past, and I hoped we could expand upon it. A member here informed me that they were soon going to Iraq to defend my freedom. I argued that going to a foreign nation that we invaded and now occupy, even though they never attacked us and posed no threat, was not defending my freedom, and might even be jeopardizing my (and your) freedom. Anyone want to take this one up? Hopefully staying specifically on the subject of Iraq, and how it relates to our freedom.

 


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No takers? Not even the

No takers? Not even the person who made the silly statement to begin with? Then we can all agree that "going to Iraq to defend our freedom" is indeed a fallacy?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

imho

Just to be clear in reading your post it seems that the following is a generalized list of problems that you perceive arising from the war in Iraq.
The War on Terror has created or increased:
Terrorist around the world (particularly in Iraq)
Fascism in America
Loss of Freedom in America
US ties to Israel
US Imperialism
US Xenophobia
US use of torture

As always you have a right to your opinion and in some ways you can make a very strong argument but it would still be opinion. Many have said that the terrorist hate our freedom but I don’t agree with that statement and don’t think you do either. Terrorist are generally created from people oppressed who either through social engineering, straight brain-washing or religious zeal are offered an outlet for their rage over their situation in life. I notice that you seem to get really upset when America defends itself from terrorist, for disregarding the concept of the correctness of the war, but you never condemn the conditions which created the terrorist. What happened to all that wonderful talk of the duty the rich nations have to protect those who cannot protect themselves? When it comes to taking US money there isn’t a cause too small or a solution too big that the UN won’t stick their hand out to receive donations and in the end nothing will be done. But actually try to solve a problem and feel the wrath of dictators and liberals the world over.

Freedom in America is a very broad subject but I will only touch on two; Personal Freedoms of Citizens and Rights of the POW (excluding torture for now). Despite the constant drumbeat on blogs and in the MSM there is precious little evidence of actual rights being violated. If I’ve missed it I would be the first to admit it. All the talk boils down to the fact that certain actions taken by the administrations spark the imagination of people who distrust the current administration and I would give their ideas more credence if they were as upset when Echelon was developed and the questionable use of confidential files and wire taps were used in Democrat Administrations. The POW are another issue which I do have some sympathy for your position in that I believe there is some gray area which we do need to allow these prisoners rights afforded by the Geneva Convention but not those afforded by the US Constitution. My reasoning is that we declared a War on Terror recognizing the combatants were neither going to be in uniform nor representing a nation and because we know this before hand there should be some latitude allowed. Unfortunately in war there is collateral damage and innocents do suffer and while I have a great deal more faith in the military than you seem to have in treating the prisoners decently and trying to hold only the guilty I am sure there have been mistakes made. But such mistakes, while regrettable, are part of war and hopefully are very few. War is a strategy of numbers and while it may seem cruel a tactic that is working cannot be abandon because an extremely small percentage of people whose innocence is debatable by degrees are detained.

There has been far too much talk lately about fascism in America lately and almost everything I’ve read points specifically to the national identity argument as the best argument. While nationalism can be bad if it is to the point were the people cannot see reality a certain amount of nationalism is required in order for a nation to sustain its existence. In fact, the very fact that we can have a discussion over how much nationalism is too much is a good sign that we haven’t come close the requirement for fascism. Also, it is in human nature to be defensive of ideas they believe to be true and since there are so many people attacking America right now the obvious result is defensive tact of exhibiting national pride. By your very attacks on America you are invoking the nationalism used as evidence against us.

Israel is long and complicated story but I’ll just leave my opinion as being that if we did not supply Israel with an ability to defend them self it would no longer exist. I don’t believe anyone in western civilization wants to see genocide regardless the victim. Israel seems to have mellowed slightly lately and I’m not sure that is in the best interest of our soldiers in Iraq (still a long story).

Imperialism and Xenophobia are other accusations I’ve read a lot lately and they seem to be just personal stereotypes based on members of the administration. I see very little actual proof of either especially considering the current administrations views on immigration and free trade.

Torture is wrong. Terrorism is wrong. I’m glad that I am not the one that has to draw the line between ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’ and torture. Considering what I’ve seen people put themselves through for training, rush week and various initiations I haven’t seen anything I would consider torture reported. However, it is something that needs to be watched closely and in extreme cases some people will have to make extreme decisions and unfortunately they will have live with those decisions for the rest of their lives.

This is too long already but you have stated before that we brought the terrorist to Iraq and I must agree with you on that issue. The war on terror was declared and when the administration lost Afghanistan as a battle ground we turned to the next best alternative and invaded a country that was sponsoring terrorism, was training terrorist and believed to have WMD. Not to mention the people of Iraq were living under the dictatorship of a man who used those WMD against his own countrymen. Honestly, I still have a hard time with putting people in harms way but I do believe that Iraq and the Iraqi people will be better off if we stay until complete stabilization and act as their allies as long as they are willing to recognize our allegiance. In the end I also believe the world and as a result America will be safer and more free but it is likely to get worse before it gets better and the end won’t be soon.

You've attempted, and

You've attempted, and succeeded, to touch on just about everything you and I have discussed recently. I appreciate it, and will try to respond to all of it, but at this time I was hoping to stay specifically on the fallacy of "defending our freedom in Iraq."

This was your reasoning:

...when the administration lost Afghanistan as a battle ground we turned to the next best alternative....

It could be argued that pursuit of bin Laden into Pakistan would have been the best alternative. Either way, "next best alternative" is a flimsy argument for war.

....and invaded a country that was sponsoring terrorism...

That argument opens the door to about half the globe. Hell, the biggest sponsor or terror might be the oil industry (and it's consumers).

...was training terrorist...

To do what? Were they capable of mounting an attack against us or our allies?

...and believed to have WMD...

We KNOW lots of countries have WMD.

...used those WMD against his own countrymen...

When? 15 years before we invaded them?

 

I do appreciate your post (and it's tone) and hope to discuss more of it with you later.


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW,

"It could be argued that pursuit of bin Laden into Pakistan would have been the best alternative. Either way, "next best alternative" is a flimsy argument for war."

The argument could be made for Pakistan but it would have to ignore the comparative relationship between the US government with Pakistan and the relationship the US had with Iraq’s government under Sadaam. The government in Pakistan thought that they were at a point to volatile to acquiesce to the request of the US and allow the troops. The Bush administration seeing Pakistan as an ally (strong or not) allowed the potential for a government based in democracy to handle their own problems. Iraq on the other hand had many issues of contention which could be exploited in order to make an argument for war.

“That argument opens the door to about half the globe. Hell, the biggest sponsor or terror might be the oil industry (and it's consumers). “

That is round about way of blaming western culture and America but you are entitled to your opinion. However, I must point out that someone buying gas does not cause the terrorist to pull the trigger. The decision to kill innocent people is something that the terrorist must be held accountable for regardless of their reasoning otherwise rationalization could be used to excuse anything.

“To do what? Were they capable of mounting an attack against us or our allies?”

Yes. How much damage could they have done would be a better question. I won’t invoke the 9-11 justification here because I don’t know what type of training the terrorist were receiving. But there have been many terrorist attacks over last decade with various degrees of success so it is only logical that they are not training to get worse at their attacks but better which means more death and more destruction.

“We KNOW lots of countries have WMD.”

We know of no other country outside of the ME that has stated as a purpose both genocide and the use of all possible means to destroy their enemies. This seems to be a reasonable point to differentiate between the toleration of WMD and the case for prevention of use and even development. WMD was one of the reasons for invading Iraq but not the only one.

“When? 15 years before we invaded them?”

Again, a better question would be, “What has Sadaam done in the past 15 years to make anyone in the world believe he would not do this again let alone use such weapons against enemies outside of his own country?”

Don't waste your time

Don't waste your time posing here Newsbusters. This is a guy who is "scared" of anyone who holds any opinion they think is correct.

Who knows, his opinion will probably have changed by tomorrow as by his own admission he hold opinions he doesn't think are correct.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

I think you are right, but

I think you are right, but I'm not sure my opinion is correct...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

when i was three my mom

when i was three my mom told me to eat my veggies - even though they tasted terrible - mom said they would help me grow big and strong - and they did...

i didn't understand why at the time... 

so the soldier was just trying to keep it simple for you, whichwing...

and thanks for showing us all why that was a very good idea...

Sigh. Here we go again with The Reasons For Invading Iraq

See my list. A key exerpt (modified) is below.


There were plenty of reasons to overthrow Saddam, WMD was just one of them.

  • Used Chemical weapon in three different situations
  • Attacked 6 nations
  • Violated the terms of the Gulf War surrender
  • Planned the assassination of a former US President
  • Collaborated with and harbored terrorists
  • Was – according to the New York Times –
    one year away from building an Atomic Bomb before he was finally
    overthrown.

 

list

I have read portions of your list before and appreciate your effort to bring all those links together. Unfortunately, I believe the purpose of this thread is not to question whether a valid argument could be made for the invasion of Iraq but whether invading actually leads us to place where conditions in the world allow Americans to enjoy their freedom more than if we had never removed Sadaam and stayed to stabilized the region.

The list is important.

The list is important.

Which is entitled to his opinion, not his own facts.

opinion

IMO, in the current political atmosphere if you can get people to the point where they are willing to admit a great many of their 'facts' are indeed opinion (and quite often not even self originated) then you can sometimes begin a useful discussion.

Agnostic - I was

Agnostic - I was reposonding to this forum post (see below).

I argued that going to a foreign nation that we invaded and now occupy,
even though they never attacked us and posed no threat, was not
defending my freedom, and might even be jeopardizing my (and your)
freedom.

Whichwing stated that Iraq posed no threat. I gave a list of why I thought they did.

Let me know if you're still confused.

 

Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!

Free,

Much more sense now that I know you were replying only to the incorrect statement about the condition of Iraq as a threat as a nation and as a terrorist supporter. As for the general question of this thread of whether American Freedoms are actually being protected your list may be important as creating a standard or 'point of origin' by which we can compare current and future levels of freedom as they relate to the threat associated with Iraq under Sadaam.