Discussion

Death toll of the second Iraq war

8 replies [Last post]

Death toll of the second Iraq war

Iksandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Applause: 0

Edited by moderator.

It seems a hard thing to believe that the war was fought to remove Saddam Hussain. He was a man supported by the US, given intelligence and weapon to kill his own people. The West doesn't have a right to proclaim themselves as lovers of democracy.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080216.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080201.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040806.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20031031.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030313.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050131.htm

1 year 51 weeks ago
booji's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 391
Applause: 37

First; what does 'loving democracy' have to do with not going to war. They are totally seperate concepts, it is perfectly reasonable for democracies to go to war but they should be supported by the public - which in practice makes it rare (hence the democratic peace theory).

Second are you not tarring the whole of the west for the actions of a minority. Probably a majority of the west were against the war in Iraq.

1 year 51 weeks ago
Iksandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Applause: 0

I'm sorry if it seems insulting, I was just hasty and it's a complicated issue I had to deal with the school.

First, what you say is only in theory. The people don't have a direct say through the government, rather it's indirect. Those who do can accomplish it without the will of people. Furthermore, there are many examples of war being fought by democracies without the people support, like the Iraq war,  There's an interesting correlation with democracies and war; not that I don't like democracy, I do.

Second. I apologize if I spotlight the entire West, I'll replace it with the American Government who were pushing it against the people.

1 year 51 weeks ago
Alex Helling's picture
Online
Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Posts: 1088
Applause: 92

Iksandy wrote:

First, what you say is only in theory. The people don't have a direct say through the government, rather it's indirect. Those who do can accomplish it without the will of people. Furthermore, there are many examples of war being fought by democracies without the people support, like the Iraq war,  There's an interesting correlation with democracies and war; not that I don't like democracy, I do.

Depends where you set the bar for both war and for democracy - there are actually not very many offensive wars fought by democracies and most of those have been in the last few years as 'liberal interventions' to create democracy (Iraq) or have been fought for 'Human rights' (Kosovo, Libya). Otherwise you are really going back to imperialist times for conflicts like Suez and before.

Also while Democratic Peace Theory is just a theory it is quite difficult to find examples against it as the theory is only that democracies wont go to war against other democracies and does not include autocracies.

1 year 51 weeks ago
Colin Helling's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Posts: 157
Applause: 11

On the issue of Democracy and the Iraq war this whole thing seems to have become clouded by the years of insurgency and sectarian strife. The people seemed quite happy to be 'liberated' at first. There is of course no way of proving this but with Kurds and Shia in a majority in Iraq and oppressed under Saddam I suspect if before the invasion there was a free and fair referendum of 'Would you support the removal of Saddam Hussein by Military means?' Yes would probably have won. Bingo, Democratic War!

One of the problems with the war was that it wasnt to liberate oppressed people, because there are a lot more oppressed people around the world and many oppressors we have to deal with on the international stage, the war was to get rid of WMD which didnt exist. 

1 year 51 weeks ago
Iksandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Applause: 0

 

Here are some information on Fallujah, and the current situation. Maybe you will now see how this wasn't humanitarian mission .http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/19/the-crushing-of-fallujah/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/06/fallujah-s-sick-babies/

1 year 50 weeks ago
Iksandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Applause: 0

 

Here are some information on Fallujah, and the current situation. Maybe you will now see how this wasn't humanitarian mission .http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/19/the-crushing-of-fallujah/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/06/fallujah-s-sick-babies/

1 year 50 weeks ago
booji's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 391
Applause: 37

Please explain how this mission has anything to do with a love of democracy.

Did anyone say it was a humanitarian mission? The fighting in fallujah happened a year or so after the invasion so should be considered seperate from it when it comes to thinking about how it was justified. By that time the Iraqi government was recognised as being legitimate around the world and had every right to allow the US to go in with as much force as was felt necessary. If there were a bunch of rebels having taken over some small city in the United States and was attempting to overthrow the government would it be wrong for the government to fight back?

Essentially the justifications for invasion and for suppressing civil war are very different. Fallujah was a horrible overreaction and almost certainly used too much force as well as the possibility of having used banned weapons. But that does not actually have much to do with the initial justifications for the invasion which were about WMD with democracy in a distant second and human rights barely on the list.

1 year 50 weeks ago
booji's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 391
Applause: 37

Dont worry; I was not offended and did not feel insulted.

Democracy at the moment certainly is indirect (with a few exceptions) and as a result yes conflict is possible. However having elections makes politicians more likely to care about the cost both in terms of men and of money and to as a result worry that anything warlike will mean they loose the next election.

I am however not even sure that replacing the West with American Government quite gets to the heart of the issue I was wondering about. I was really stating the opposite of 'democratic peace' that loving democracy as a concept does not exclude war. Indeed it would seem to be more likely that those who are most feverent in their love of democracy would be those who would most want to convert others to that democracy - by force if necessary. If you are convinced of the good that a conflcit will do then you are more likely to get involved in a conflict.

1 year 51 weeks ago
Syndicate content