War In Iraq: Was it right?

[Astor]

Well, it's been over five years since it started, so what does everyone think? Was it right to go to war? Does it matter to you if there were any WMDs? Or maybe was it inevitable that we would have gone to war?

 

What are your thoughts and feelings regarding it, and the people involved?

 

Discuss.

[Darth InSidious]

Define "right".

 

"Right" by whose measurement of such things?

[Totenkopf]

Talk about a loaded topic.

[jonathan7]

Well, it's been over five years since it started, so what does everyone think? Was it right to go to war? Does it matter to you if there were any WMDs? Or maybe was it inevitable that we would have gone to war?

 

What are your thoughts and feelings regarding it, and the people involved?

 

Discuss.

 

No it wasn't; it concerns me that aged 18; I had more nouse than both the UK's security services and government;

 

Iraq never had WMD, and even if Sadam had them he would never have used them on the West as it would immediatly end his rule because of retaliation. WMD matter because at least in Britain that was the reason for going to war; any honourable leader would have resigned upon realising that the reason for going to war was incorrect. Of course Tony Blair has all the honour of a female black widow spider.

 

See we sold Sadam the weapons in the first place so we should frigging well know what weapons he did and didn't have! Also the fact he had all these weapons in the first place was to 'help' him fight Islamic Fundematalism in Iran; so why on earth would he be boosom buddies with Bin Laden? Blair is an egotistical, vain, arrogant and slimey; a leader of the worst kind, who ignores what the experts say thinking he knows better.

 

Not that I'm letting the American government off; watching Rambo 3 would have been more relaible intel for Afghanistan than anything your government produced. Selective amnesia would be the best description, that Bin Laden et al were only armed because of the CIA (who IMO are up there with the 5 most evil institutions in the world!).

 

Should we be in Afghanista? Yes. Should we be in Iraq; no; but no we're there we need to finish the job. We should also be doing something/more about Sudan and Zimbabwe; unfortunatly Iraq has severally affected British and American foreign policy.

 

Thanks for reading.

[JCarter426]

Iraq never had WMD

 

Actually, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction at one point. You'd have to be an idiot not to have them in a region like that. Sadam was told by the US to get rid of them, and he did. And then the US accused him of having WMDs and invaded his country. Who's the bad guy here?

 

See we sold Sadam the weapons in the first place so we should frigging well know what weapons he did and didn't have!

 

Excellent point. But it doesn't make a difference; everyone except the American people knew that the "proof" of WMDs in Iraq was hardly that. Even the media knew it, but they covered it up because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic in speaking out against a war against alleged terrorists.

 

Did I just use "media" and "alleged" in the same sentence?

[jonathan7]

Actually, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction at one point. You'd have to be an idiot not to have them in a region like that. Sadam was told by the US to get rid of them, and he did. And then the US accused him of having WMDs and invaded his country. Who's the bad guy here?

 

A bad turn of phrase on my part; it should have read; Iraq didn't have WMD at the time we accused them of havinf them in 2002/2003.

 

The ignorance of a people in a democracy is no excuse; blood is on the hands of all those who failed to stop the war; in a democracy with freedom of information it is only a matter of effort to find things out.

[JCarter426]

The ignorance of a people in a democracy is no excuse; blood is on the hands of all those who failed to stop the war; in a democracy with freedom of information it is only a matter of effort to find things out.

 

Have a cookie.

 

The amount of people who still think to this day that there were WMDs in Iraq is painfully ridiculous.

[Corinthian]

The CIA screwed the pooch, sure (Although I'm still not convinced that Saddam had actually dismantled his WMD program, I still suspect that there are WMDs hidden, possibly in one of Iraq's neighboring states.), but the fact remains that we deposed a dangerous lunatic who was a threat to not just American security and interests, but the interests of the entire world. We're talking about a man who gassed his own people.

 

Frankly, we'd have been better off if we'd stomped on Saddam's face back in '91, but we didn't, so Bush Jr. had to finish the job his pop started but didn't have the steel to finish.

 

So, in terms of the right and wrong of it, yes, the war was right. Saddam was a threat, WMDs or no, and a tyrant. I can't see how destroying an evil government and flinging it from power can ever be wrong. Now, I have some misgivings about how the war was handled - mainly, I think we should have gone in there with overwhelming numbers and buried the Ba'athists under a tidal wave of 5.56mm NATO and tank shells, the morality is nothing I have ever questioned.

[jonathan7]

The CIA screwed the pooch, sure (Although I'm still not convinced that Saddam had actually dismantled his WMD program, I still suspect that there are WMDs hidden, possibly in one of Iraq's neighboring states.), but the fact remains that we deposed a dangerous lunatic who was a threat to not just American security and interests, but the interests of the entire world. We're talking about a man who gassed his own people.

 

And who sold him those weapons in the first place? Hmmm

 

Quite frankly you are being very naive if you think Sadam was a threat to American security - how exactly? If he launched any kind of attack, it would signal his removal from power.

 

Frankly, we'd have been better off if we'd stomped on Saddam's face back in '91, but we didn't, so Bush Jr. had to finish the job his pop started but didn't have the steel to finish.

 

I agree he should have been removed in '91; that on the other hand did not mean Bush Jr should have finished the job.

 

So, in terms of the right and wrong of it, yes, the war was right. Saddam was a threat, WMDs or no, and a tyrant. I can't see how destroying an evil government and flinging it from power can ever be wrong. Now, I have some misgivings about how the war was handled - mainly, I think we should have gone in there with overwhelming numbers and buried the Ba'athists under a tidal wave of 5.56mm NATO and tank shells, the morality is nothing I have ever questioned.

 

Was Saddam a horrible Tyrant? But why don't the hypocritical Wetern Governments (America in particular here) do something about Saudi Arabia (who is ruled by perhaps the most evil regime on the planet - between them and North Korea) and Isreal; both of whom are far more of a threat to world peace than Iraq was at the time.

 

Also;

 

Even philosophers will praise war as ennobling mankind, forgetting the Greek who said: 'War is bad in that it begets more evil than it kills.'

Immanuel Kant

 

Do you even watch the news? Have you seen the state Iraq is in; my pet rabbit could have done a better job of after war preperations. Its Vietnam all over again; those who fail to learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. You really think its a success story? The middle classes have fled Iraq; the nation is in trumoil; less people would have died if Saddam was still in power.

 

The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny. - David Hume

 

The American government is perhaps a worse tyrant than Saddam ever was; wake up at smell the roses, you prop up Governments who support your cause a'la Isreal and Saudi Arabia; you along with all the other Western Govenments have 'free trade' protectionist economies; which cost the lives of millions of people. The rich have prayed on the poor throught the centuries nothing has change.

 

You are sir, entitled to your opinion , but your plain wrong!

[mimartin]

Can something be right, but wrong at any given time?

 

Can something be right, but undertaken in such a manner that makes it completely wrong?

 

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who ruled his people through fear, torture and intimidation. What could be wrong about removing him from power? His military threatened to fire anti-aircraft missiles at U.S. patrolling aircraft. Yet, since removing him from power are the people of Iraq better off? Has torture stopped in that country? Are people less fearful? Is the region as a whole more, or less stable? How many missiles actually hit American planes before the war began? Compare that to how many young men and woman have return home in flag draped coffins or with their bodies mutilated for life.

 

At the time Afghanistan should have been the U.S. priority, instead we divert manpower and resources to Iraq. We should have allowed the weapons inspectors to finish their job. The threat of military action should have been used, but we should not have actually used military force. If the time came to actually invade the U.S. should have built an international coalition. Not by overstating the unreliable intelligence, but by diplomatic means. We should have listen to the military commander and had the military support to protect the Iraqi infrastructure. We should have planned for the unforeseen problems that always come up in a war zone, instead of wearing our rose color glasses. Our military soldiers should have been properly equipped. We should have known the cultures and the history of the people of the region and our political and military leaders should have certainly known the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnies.

 

Was the War in Iraq right?

 

That all depends on your views.

 

Personally, my answer is no. Not because I support a dictator and not because I don’t wish freedom for all the people of the world. I believe it was made wrong by our actions. We were more worried about our own motivations that we did not think about what was best for the people of Iraq and that region. A lot of families have been destroyed by this war. At lot of son, daughter, fathers and mothers have come and are still coming home in coffins. Yet, people are also getting richer everyday by this stupid war.

[Corinthian]

Well, you don't mince words. I gotta respect that.

 

We did, yup. And it was a major screwup. I'm not afraid to admit the United States has done some particularly boneheaded actions, especially during the Cold War.

 

How does that make any sense? It was wrong to depose him now, but if we had deposed him during the Gulf War it would've been A-OK?

 

Saudi Arabia isn't a threat to American security and interests. Furthermore, they're a significant supplier of our oil. We go up against them, we potentially face an oil shortage. While I agree that we should destroy Saudi Arabia's government, along with the Chinese and the North Koreans, I'd rather not wake up one morning to find that there's been a mushroom cloud over New York.

 

Israel is only a threat to security in the Middle-East because of the Muslims, ironically. Good old mutual race hatred, huh? Last I looked, the ones who threaten Middle-Eastern security are nations like Egypt and groups like the P.L.O.

 

Yes, Iraq is a terminal garbage pit. Unforeseen circumstances, as they say, although I hear since the Surge it's been gradually improving over there. What the hell does Vietnam have to do with it, anyway? We're losing the Iraq War because of lack of Public Support? From what I've seen, the Iraq War is frankly over - we've destroyed the Ba'athist military and deposed their government, installing a new, democratic one. Now, the place is a hellhole of fighting and probably will be so for the next decade, but that's the Middle-East. You think it got it's own saying about stability because it's a paradise? It is quite literally THE WORST PLACE IN THE WORLD.

 

We have a nice bit of good old Anti-American BS. We didn't have anything to do with Israel's initial formation, and we certainly aren't dictating their policy - they've defied U.S. wishes more than a few times.

 

And now some Anti-Capitalism...what's this about Free Trade costing the lives of millions? I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here.

 

You are right about one thing, though. Nothing really has changed. As a certain wise man once said "There's nothing new under the Sun."

[jonathan7]

Can something be right, but wrong at any given time? ~snip~

 

An excellent post; more articulated and elegant than anything I could have produced.

 

Well, you don't mince words. I gotta respect that.

 

Please do not take it as a personal attack, or a criticism of you, it is obviously a passionate issue; but I always try to communicate clearly what I think, while still upholding Voltaire; "I disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

We did, yup. And it was a major screwup. I'm not afraid to admit the United States has done some particularly boneheaded actions, especially during the Cold War.

 

IMO all nations are self serving; the States is criticised more currently as its the only super power; its nothing personal; alot of my family are Americans.

 

How does that make any sense? It was wrong to depose him now, but if we had deposed him during the Gulf War it would've been A-OK?

 

I'm an idealist, in 1991 Saddam attacked a nation; I never believe in a pre-emptive strike; all that possibly can be done to avoid war sould be done, and you should never strike first; otherwise you don't have the moral high ground. Whatever else maybe said; Pearl Harbour would be an example of that.

 

Israel is only a threat to security in the Middle-East because of the Muslims, ironically. Good old mutual race hatred, huh? Last I looked, the ones who threaten Middle-Eastern security are nations like Egypt and groups like the P.L.O.

 

They are frankly all like 5 year old bullies who can't back away from each other; 'he started it', 'no, i didn't you did'... etc. Its a shame the Palestinians hadn't taken a page our of M.L. Kings book and had peaceful protests.

 

Yes, Iraq is a terminal garbage pit. Unforeseen circumstances, as they say, although I hear since the Surge it's been gradually improving over there. What the hell does Vietnam have to do with it, anyway? We're losing the Iraq War because of lack of Public Support? From what I've seen, the Iraq War is frankly over - we've destroyed the Ba'athist military and deposed their government, installing a new, democratic one. Now, the place is a hellhole of fighting and probably will be so for the next decade, but that's the Middle-East. You think it got it's own saying about stability because it's a paradise? It is quite literally THE WORST PLACE IN THE WORLD.

 

Whats the obsession with Democracy? Couldn't the Iraqi people have been left to have their own revolution if they had wanted Democracy that badly?

 

We have a nice bit of good old Anti-American BS. We didn't have anything to do with Israel's initial formation, and we certainly aren't dictating their policy - they've defied U.S. wishes more than a few times.

 

Isreal's initial formation and the promise of land to the Palestinians was purely British fault; I didn't blame you for that, nor do i think our foreign policy any better than yours.

 

And now some Anti-Capitalism...what's this about Free Trade costing the lives of millions? I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here.

 

Free trade = protectionism, in other words, LEDC's cannot sell manufactured products to western countries, they can only sell the ore's; and then we sell the manufactured products back to them. Thats a brief overview; its outside the bounds of the thread really

 

You are right about one thing, though. Nothing really has changed. As a certain wise man once said "There's nothing new under the Sun."

 

Aye, but thats because man's inhumanity to man, has been a great constant throughout the ages.

[Corinthian]

Alright, two things, then I'm out.

 

1: Nothing changed between the two Gulf Wars. I wouldn't call the invasion of Iraq a Preemptive strike, really. More like a long-delayed retaliation.

 

2: What Government would you propose we put in place after we disposed of Saddam? A new dictatorship? Or maybe one of those old Oligarchies?

[jonathan7]

Alright, two things, then I'm out.

 

1: Nothing changed between the two Gulf Wars. I wouldn't call the invasion of Iraq a Preemptive strike, really. More like a long-delayed retaliation.

 

Retaliation for what? Taking the eye of Afghanistan was a distinctly bad idea.

 

During the Gulf war the provacation was the invasion of Kuwait, and we had a reason to remove Saddam; it should have been done then, it wasn't and many rebels in Iraq who wanted rid of Saddam died. It seems highly illogical to me having decided not to remove him, kick up a fuss years later, when there are more pressing concerns.

 

2: What Government would you propose we put in place after we disposed of Saddam? A new dictatorship? Or maybe one of those old Oligarchies?

 

Why is it, that if something is not a democracy, its immediatly bad? I often go on holiday to Morocco, a country with a wonderful and compassionate king; Oman is also another example of a country under control by a venerable human being, who cares for his people. Both countries have problems, corruption is a problem, as with many LEDC's. However in terms of figure head leadership I would rather be led by Mohammed VI than any of the current leaders produced by Western Democracies.

[Corinthian]

Retaliating for invading Kuwait. That's why I said it was long-delayed.

 

Democracy is the best government we have. Sure, there are good Autocracies that exist, but these are the exceptions. Absolute power corrupts, you know? Not that a Democracy can't have the same pitfall, but at the same time, those in power in a Democracy are ruling by the will of the people, and can lose their power by same.

 

Besides, in a Monarchy, you're tying your country's future to the genetic lottery, playing a game of Russian Roulette with a nation's fate at stake. Eventually, the good qualities are going to run out and you're going to get a loon, like Nero, in power. I mean, a Monarchy is okay if you're not bothered having a regicide every couple generations, but, you know, that's usually considered a bad thing.

[jonathan7]

Retaliating for invading Kuwait. That's why I said it was long-delayed.

 

Democracy is the best government we have. Sure, there are good Autocracies that exist, but these are the exceptions. Absolute power corrupts, you know? Not that a Democracy can't have the same pitfall, but at the same time, those in power in a Democracy are ruling by the will of the people, and can lose their power by same.

 

Besides, in a Monarchy, you're tying your country's future to the genetic lottery, playing a game of Russian Roulette with a nation's fate at stake. Eventually, the good qualities are going to run out and you're going to get a loon, like Nero, in power. I mean, a Monarchy is okay if you're not bothered having a regicide every couple generations, but, you know, that's usually considered a bad thing.

 

Meh, I'll send you a copy of my political theory when its finished; Democracy is flawed; Communism, while in theory a wonderful idea doesn't work in practice. Conceeded there are problems with hereditary Monachys; but Democracies have similar problems; a la Hitler.

 

(My theory is none of the above for the record)

[mimartin]

Shouldn’t the people that will be govern by their countries government have the right to decide what form that government should take? Isn’t that what democracy is all about?

 

So far I do not see where any of the prewar hype has happened, but wasn’t one of our goals to bring freedom to the people of Iraq? Wouldn’t that include letting them choice what form of government they want on enact?

 

The problem with giving someone freedom is then they have the freedom to choice something different from what you are promoting

 

An excellent post; more articulated and elegant than anything I could have produced.

Thank you, but I’m sure you are anyone here could do as well, if not better. More like excellent job Bill Gates because without Word ever other word would be misspelled in everything I write.

[Corinthian]

So what's your theory? Total anarchy, or the famous Oligarchy?

 

Letting the Iraqis choose? Are you kidding? It's a wonder they know how to tie their own shoes, much less decide on a government. That nation is so fractured we'd probably be better off turning the whole place into a blackened glass desert with liberal application of nuclear warheads. Besides, they don't seem to be objecting. Hell, they even wrote up their own Constitution.

[jonathan7]

So what's your theory? Total anarchy, or the famous Oligarchy?

 

Neither, you'll have to wait and see

[mimartin]

I wonder if the British thought as little of the American back in 1783. My money says they did, have ever you really ever listen to the words to Yankee Doodle? It is not a very flattering song and was meant as an insult to the American’s. Of course, the American’s were too stupid to figure that out and it became a patriotic song.

 

I believe you are selling the Iraqi people way short just as the British sold us short all those years ago. I’m not saying that Iraq would survive intact if we were to leave it up to them. Personally, I believe it would end up being multiple nations. I am saying unless they come to care about their government and are willing to fight and die for their country this will never work. The only people that can bring real peace and stability to that nation are the citizens of Iraq. We can surge ever three or four years to bring some form of stability to the country, but as soon as we pull back it will be business as usual.

[Corinthian]

I really don't think I'm selling the Iraqis that short. Their reaction to being released from under the thumb of Saddam and the Ba'athists was to start killing each other, because one group apparently also thinks that Muhammad's kids or whatever are worth listening to.

[SilentScope001]

You know, once upon a time, mercs on the small island of Silcy rebelled against the dictator Hiero II. These mercs enlisted the help of Carthage in order to destroy the dictator. After getting the help of Carthage, these mercs became upset upset about becoming Carthage's puppets. So, they called upon the Romans, hoping that the Romans will liberate Silcy, and allow the mercs the freedom to run their own island.

 

Thus starting the Punic Wars, which led to the march of Hannibal and Carthage being salted.

 

I'll ask you this: Was the Punic Wars right? Was it right for Rome to intervene on the side of mercs who want money? Or did Rome invade purely so that they can gain control of valuable trading routes? Is Hiero II really that bad of a guy? And were the mercs actually oppressed by Carthage?

 

If you answer: "Does it really matter if the Punic Wars are right or not, based on artibraty moral judgements? The fact is, it happened, and that war, no matter how 'just', is still war," congragulations, you are correct.

 

And that is how I feel about Iraq too.

***

I really don't think I'm selling the Iraqis that short. Their reaction to being released from under the thumb of Saddam and the Ba'athists was to start killing each other, because one group apparently also thinks that Muhammad's kids or whatever are worth listening to.

 

Actually, the first part of the Iraqi Insurgency was in fact the Shias (which thinks Muhammed's son-in-law is worth listening to) battling against the Secular Ba'athists/Sunnis. So, it's somewhat a continuation of the Ba'athist struggle...but when the religious Sunni extremists, such as Al-Qadiah, started to hijack the Sunni insurgency, the former Secular Ba'athist/Sunni rebels decided to ally with America.

 

Also, now, in the present-day, the struggle is now dealing with internal politics, not religion. It's a battle between the SCIRI's Badr Bridage and al-Sadr's Madhi Army. The Badr Bridage were from Iran, and believe in granting Shias an autonomous region like Kurdistan. The Madhi Army orginated from Iraq itself as a nationalist movement, and prefer an intact Iraq.

 

Yeah, you're selling Iraq short. Iraq is far more complex than you can imagine.

 

Meh. I don't believe in idle nuclear holocausts, so I took a little issue with your comment about it.