Will Anything Good Ever Come From The U.S. Invasion of Iraq

[guywithashovel]

I'm just wondering if anyone thinks that my country's invasion of Iraq in 2003 will ever produce any beneficial results. Back when we first went into Iraq, I sort of supported it, mainly just because I thought it was best to support your country at all times.

Over time, my thoughts on the subject have changed. Sometimes I wish we'd never done it, and other times I have other thoughts. At this point, I mainly just hope that something good will come of it. After all, what's done is done.

I've heard some people say that Iraq will eventually make history view Bush in the same manner that it now views Harry Truman. For those who don't know, Truman was very unpopular towards the end of his presidency---even more unpopular than Bush was at the end of his. His approval ratings hovered in the low twenty percent range. But now, he's usually seen in a favorable light.

So, do you think anything good will come of this?

[Greenday]

There already has. Saddam Hussein is gone. And while a lot of people hate us there, a lot of people there are also grateful for us helping fight for them.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, Halliburton and the other defense contractors seem pretty happy what with the billions of dollars profit and all. ;p

Other than that? No. Frankly, it is fucked for all time. The Middle East has a very long memory and holds a grudge. Which is why the US was hated so much there to begin with, because it keeps meddling in the area. Constantly. They remember everything the US has done there even if the average American hasn't the faintest clue.

Best bet in all honesty would be to get the withdrawal over with and just leave it the hell alone. All of it. Focus on Afghanistan where the actual enemy was. ><

[Gravekeeper]

There already has. Saddam Hussein is gone. And while a lot of people hate us there, a lot of people there are also grateful for us helping fight for them.

Sorry Green, but the majority of Iraqis want the US out and have wanted it out since at least 2006 when someone got around to start asking their opinion. -.-

[Nyoibo]

Well the US is cleaning up after itself after what 20 years? But I'm still wondering if better late than never sums it up.

[BroomJockey]

Hussein's dead, but there's 20 more guys willing to take his place. If the Iraqis aren't willing to fight for themselves, then this "freedom" will last about .5 microseconds. And the US will be even more hated in the area.

[Greenday]

Sorry Green, but the majority of Iraqis want the US out and have wanted it out since at least 2006 when someone got around to start asking their opinion. -.-

I'm just going by what soldiers fresh from Iraq were telling me.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just going by what soldiers fresh from Iraq were telling me.

If you had a foreign army invade your country, topple its government, destroy its infrastructure and occupy it for years you'd try to smile when they looked at you too.

Hussein's dead, but there's 20 more guys willing to take his place. If the Iraqis aren't willing to fight for themselves, then this "freedom" will last about .5 microseconds. And the US will be even more hated in the area.

Exactly. You can't give people "Freedom" and democracy than expect everything to turn to lollipops and rainbows because they're "free" now. They have to want it. You can't throw change at people and expect it to stick unless they've already seen that the change is good and they desire it. Considering what this change to "freedom" brought them, it'll be a miracle they don't immediately revert when the US leaves. ><

They're already more hated in the area. Not to mention they painted a big bulls eye on Iraq and drew Al Qaeda into is well. =/

[BroomJockey]

I'm just going by what soldiers fresh from Iraq were telling me.

Yes, let's tell the people with guns that we want them the fuck out of our country.

I'm sorry, but that's anecdotal at best, and a poor sampling to boot. How many people told them they were grateful? Out of how many living in the country?

[Greenday]

If you had a foreign army invade your country, topple its government, destroy its infrastructure and occupy it for years you'd try to smile when they looked at you too.

As I recall, they hated their own government and didn't have much of a infrastructure before we got there.

Yes, let's tell the people with guns that we want them the fuck out of our country.

I'm sorry, but that's anecdotal at best, and a poor sampling to boot. How many people told them they were grateful? Out of how many living in the country?

And yes, they did have people tell them to get the fuck out of their country. There were plenty of people who did that. The problem is, everyone just assumes everyone in the Middle East hates us, and sure, a lot of people from the Middle East do, it's not a universally held feeling among Middle Easterners.

[the_std]

The problem is, everyone just assumes everyone in the Middle East hates us, and sure, a lot of people from the Middle East do, it's not a universally held feeling among Middle Easterners.

It doesn't have to be. The majority is more than enough.

[BroomJockey]

And yes, they did have people tell them to get the fuck out of their country. There were plenty of people who did that.

Of course they did. My point wasn't that no one would say that, simply that some people are actually two-faced about it, due to the overwhelming amounts of firepower your country can bring to bear. Thus not everyone who says "thanks" really means it. Or means it for the reasons you'd think.

It doesn't have to be. The majority is more than enough.

It doesn't even have to be the majority. If you have 1/3 in favour, 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 neutral then that's still enough to screw things up majorly. Start playing with the size of the neutral party, the more neutral people you have, the fewer opposition people you need to screw things up.

[Rapscallion]

As I recall, they hated their own government.

Some did, certainly, and others loved it. See, the middle eastern nations was formed mostly by British colonial involvement, as far as I understand it. There aren't much in the way of natural borders formed over time - just imposed. It was quite some time back, but it wasn't natural and it lumped all sorts of peoples together.

Anyone remember the justification for the invasion of Iraq of the way Saddam was gassing Kurds in the northern marshy regions? Not his people by tribe, but his countrymen by an imposed system. Saddam was taken in his ancestral village - Tikrit, if memory serves.

We're talking about a country that hadn't had enough time to bond together as a people, and that takes centuries. Yorkshire and Lancashire over here had the War of the Roses. It's currently just friendly banter several centuries on.

In that sort of state, there are divisions, and the old tribalism kicks up once again. One group in power, and there will be many hangers-on clinging to the teat of the current government and lording it over everyone else. Think of how it worked for members of the communist party back in the day in Russia.

It's worth noting that quite a bit of any population just want to get on with their lives as best they can. You've got the people for it, and the people against it, but a fair percentage (no idea how many) aren't extreme enough in either way to attract the attention of either side as long as they stay out of the way.

You do realise that Saddam wasn't a particularly incompetent leader? He was making some progress towards modernising Iraq in a secular way. He appeared occasionally in images praying, but he wasn't a particularly religious person. Part of his policies were to ensure a future for Iraq without dependency on outside financial aid. Not everyone suffered.

Doesn't mean to say he or those around him were nice, but there were many others more incompetent than him.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

Hussein's dead, but there's 20 more guys willing to take his place. If the Iraqis aren't willing to fight for themselves, then this "freedom" will last about .5 microseconds. And the US will be even more hated in the area.

I'm not defending or protesting the war. I'm commenting on your statement. Ok, there's more than 20 people willing to take Saddam's place, fine. But does that mean you don't still try to make things better?

This is going to be a long process for Iraq. They've taken control of Baghdad. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...one/index.html

It just takes time. I believe that while a majority of the Iraqis want American troops out, it's not because they're ungrateful. It's because they want to control their land how they see fit. American troops are there to keep order while Iraqi soldiers are being trained by American soldiers.

[BroomJockey]

But does that mean you don't still try to make things better?

Yes, actually, it does. It's almost exactly like someone in an abusive relationship. They can't move on until they're ready, and your interference can just really fuck things up more, and to think you can "fix" them without their desire is the height of arrogance.