Iraq War: Good or Bad?!

[Aenlic]

What military resources have the armed forces requested to fight the greater war on terror that have been denied because of the war in iraq? Can you backup that statement?

Rhetoric vs reality?

It is a known fact that the Bush administration began shifting assets, particularly special forces and intel assets, from Afghanistan to the Middle East in preparation for an invasion of Iraq, beginning in the fall prior to the invasion. If you want to play links wars, then I'll happily oblige with links to statistics. At one point there were only 7500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan just prior to the U.S. invasion. Take a quick glance at a map and tell me that Afghanistan is that much smaller than Iraq. Tell me that 7500 troops can search for bin Laden in a country the size of Iraq with the added difficulty of worse terrain such as numerous mountain chains. You remember bin Laden don't you? The guy who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Saddam was just a bad, bad evil man like dozens of others, including some who are good buddies of the Bush administration (Pervez Musharraf or Saparmurat Niyazov).

Care to back up your question?

[yesdachi]

So this is an inquisition or a witch hunt? Not the problems of one country are only for themselves, no nation has the right to proclame itself as the savior of all the others. And i agree with the increase on freedom, but not with the invasion of soberanity, no one can justify an invasion because they don't like how is ruled the country. Also there were many casualties between civils that cannot be justified, besides the prolongation of the invasion that provoqued many more deaths too both sides.

I don’t think it is any kind of an inquisition or witch-hunt. Saddam was an enemy of the US and had been for a long time, the war on terror was an excellent excuse to remove him from power and put the “hate Americans” fire out in Iraq. Iraq was a country that perpetuated terrorism, terrorism that affected the US. To me that is reason enough to go to war. Perhaps if Saddam openly hated your country and encouraged his people to hate and want to hurt your people and let terrorists who want to hurt your people come and go thru his country as they pleased you would feel differently.

“…no one can justify an invasion because they don't like how is ruled the country.” You sure can, if said country is ruled in a manner that makes it a threat to your country.

Civilian causalities are the saddest part and the hardest part to justify but from what I have seen and heard (first hand) it is still justified, the Iraq people want their freedom and don’t all hate Americans.

Being at war with Iraq is not a popular thing in the US. Our gas prices are not lower but higher than ever, no politician has gained popularity over the decision to go to war, and the people in general are not happy about it but it was agreed that we go to war and I think we are doing the “right thing” by staying and helping Iraq stabilize their country. We could have easily removed Saddam and then just left, that would have probably even made the American people happier than staying but seeing the leadership transition thru is the right thing to do and I’m glad we are.

So bring on the people that think I am wrong or an idiot, I don’t care, this is what I think.

[Petrus]

Iraq was a country that perpetuated terrorism, terrorism that affected the US.

No flame war intended, but are you sure not to think about Syria or Iran or Pakistan instead of Irak?

To my knowlage, Irak has not been involved in terrorist activities, at the difference of those countries.

Can you provide informations?

[yesdachi]

The war was pointless for the UK's sake we shouldnt be wasting our times invading countries on the other side of the world, we were not under threat from Iraq so why did we invade? We shouldnt be sticking our noses in other peoples buisness, we need to sort problems in our own country before we try to help others.

Way to offer support to your allies.

Terrorist attacks on the US destabilize the US’s economy. An unstable US economy definitely affects the UK. Other reasons but I don’t know enough about the UK and should keep my mouth shut until I do.

[yesdachi]

No flame war intended, but are you sure not to think about Syria or Iran or Pakistan instead of Irak?

To my knowlage, Irak has not been involved in terrorist activities, at the difference of those countries.

Can you provide informations?

No Flame war and I agree, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are all hot beds for terrorism too but Iraq offered the right combination of evil dictator and supporter of terrorists for the US to be able to declare war on. Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are similar except that it would be more difficult for the American public to support a war vs. countries without a “Saddam” that we already hate and have a history with. I think going to war with Iraq and the war on terrorism in general has decreased the amount of terrorist activities in Syria, Iran, Pakistan and other similar countries and has allowed the leaders of those countries to realize that the US is serious about the war and has encouraged them to increase efforts to reduce terrorism in their countries.

And I don’t think any government is going to claim active involvement in terrorist activities, but there were terrorist activities going on in Iraq and the government knew about them and did nothing to stop them, effectively supporting them and allowing them to grow.

[King Ragnar]

Way to offer support to your allies.

Terrorist attacks on the US destabilize the US’s economy. An unstable US economy definitely affects the UK. Other reasons but I don’t know enough about the UK and should keep my mouth shut until I do.

Support would be given but not using troops but by backing the US in invading Iraq, you dont need our support of troops, its not as though it would affect the biggest country in world.

The UK has lost honourable men and for what Getting Saddam Hussian for G. Bush thats it, as soon as a America and the UK pull out, the country will be back to a bad state imediatley. I even see a civil war in the future when we leave.

[Petrus]

No Flame war and I agree, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are all hot beds for terrorism too but Iraq offered the right combination of evil dictator and supporter of terrorists for the US to be able to declare war on.

About terrorist support, i did not see anything that could prove such an involvement by the Iraki governement, except if you considerate the people's mujahids (Iranian opposition) as terrorists as they were nested in Irak.

But i fully agree on your point about the general US public perception about Irak, seen as an ennemy since gulf war I.

Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are similar except that it would be more difficult for the American public to support a war vs. countries without a “Saddam” that we already hate and have a history with.

Same as above, i think you are right on this point.

I think going to war with Iraq and the war on terrorism in general has decreased the amount of terrorist activities in Syria, Iran, Pakistan and other similar countries and has allowed the leaders of those countries to realize that the US is serious about the war and has encouraged them to increase efforts to reduce terrorism in their countries.

This is probably true with Syria and Iran and absolutely true about Pakistan wether in Afghanistan or in India, where Pakistan support to terrorism has been a plague during decades and was reduced to nothing (?) after the attacks in northern america.

By the way, this shows that diplomatic pressure and police cooperation can be more efficient than classical war to fight terrorism as the threat of military action by the US proved to be efficient as soon as 2001, before the invasion of Irak.

And I don’t think any government is going to claim active involvement in terrorist activities, but there were terrorist activities going on in Iraq and the government knew about them and did nothing to stop them, effectively supporting them and allowing them to grow.

Well, that's the point that poses a problem, as i did not see verified informations concerning these activities in Irak except in political speeches that appeared to be wrong or lies or unproved or pure propaganda.

[Aenlic]

U.S. forces found one, just one, terrorist-linked training camp in Iraq after the invasion. Only one. It just happened to be in Kurdish controlled territory right under our very own no-fly zone. Saddam and his forces had zero, zip, zilch, nada access to that site. Aside from giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and charities linked to them, an amount which turn out to be less than 1% of what individual members of the Saudi royal family have given to the same groups, there is no proven link between Iraq and terrorism. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Iraq or even had Iraq connections of any kind. But, through clever rhetoric and the basic gullibility of the majority of Americans, shortly after the invasion the majority of those polled in America thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that most of the terrorists on the planes that day were Iraqi or had Iraqi support. So much for reality. That disconnect from reality continues to this day.

[Shaka_Khan]

From what I know, there were no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion. If Bush wanted to liberate Iraq then that should've been done by his father during the first Persian Gulf War. The US had plenty of support from the world. There were even Iraqis fighting against Saddam's regime after the first war.
Iran hasn't been involved with terrorism for quite a while (ever since the hostage crisis). Iran was actually a democracy during the early 20th century. Have any of you heard of Operation Ajax? I think the policy on Iran was clumsy.

(I'm not anti-American but you don't have to agree with everything that a government would say).

[Soulforged]

I don’t think it is any kind of an inquisition or witch-hunt. Saddam was an enemy of the US and had been for a long time, the war on terror was an excellent excuse to remove him from power and put the “hate Americans” fire out in Iraq. Iraq was a country that perpetuated terrorism, terrorism that affected the US. To me that is reason enough to go to war. Perhaps if Saddam openly hated your country and encouraged his people to hate and want to hurt your people and let terrorists who want to hurt your people come and go thru his country as they pleased you would feel differently.

It was many times. Going throught the world hunting "communism", and terrorism. But you've a point in that the terrorism affected your country, still there's other ways to remove a leader and replace it with other that you presume better (when this actually means allied with you). You're wrong with the assumption that the war against terrorism will end it. Terrorism is moved by believes, you can't obstruct nor kill the "flowing" of ideas, and less with war.
Didn't Bush father placed Saddam on government? (Just curious)

“…no one can justify an invasion because they don't like how is ruled the country.” You sure can, if said country is ruled in a manner that makes it a threat to your country.

Ok. Let's revise of what degree is that manner. And i clearly said that "they don't like how is ruled the country." it's different from "they're actually atacking us"

Civilian causalities are the saddest part and the hardest part to justify but from what I have seen and heard (first hand) it is still justified, the Iraq people want their freedom and don’t all hate Americans.

And how will be that.

Being at war with Iraq is not a popular thing in the US. Our gas prices are not lower but higher than ever, no politician has gained popularity over the decision to go to war, and the people in general are not happy about it but it was agreed that we go to war and I think we are doing the “right thing” by staying and helping Iraq stabilize their country. We could have easily removed Saddam and then just left, that would have probably even made the American people happier than staying but seeing the leadership transition thru is the right thing to do and I’m glad we are.

And then why don't you just leave? Well it's simple to USA is convenient that one more nation supports their politics and to go by their side. Is a new way of doing old things, just more imperialism.

So bring on the people that think I am wrong or an idiot, I don’t care, this is what I think. [/

Ok, but i never said you were an idiot, to make such an assumption is way to far of the mediums that i dispose in this forum.

[Soulforged]

U.S. forces found one, just one, terrorist-linked training camp in Iraq after the invasion. Only one. It just happened to be in Kurdish controlled territory right under our very own no-fly zone. Saddam and his forces had zero, zip, zilch, nada access to that site. Aside from giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and charities linked to them, an amount which turn out to be less than 1% of what individual members of the Saudi royal family have given to the same groups, there is no proven link between Iraq and terrorism. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Iraq or even had Iraq connections of any kind. But, through clever rhetoric and the basic gullibility of the majority of Americans, shortly after the invasion the majority of those polled in America thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that most of the terrorists on the planes that day were Iraqi or had Iraqi support. So much for reality. That disconnect from reality continues to this day.

Agree with this too.

[manbaps]

If the American governments werent such hipocritical bastards then i would support the war more as i dont think anyone would disagree with Saddam being removed. But the 'freedom and democracy' bullsh!t come on, the american government is well known for supporting dictators aslong as its in the interests of the nation and more importantly their pockets. Lets not forget who benifits most from Iraq being occupied by america, lucrative contracts concerned with oil and many other things have been granted to american contractors and ill leave you to guess who are major stock owners in these companies. Saddam used to be good friends with america, hell he bought enough weapons from them. But when Saddam decided to do his own thing America decided they werent going to have any of that.

One final point, France and Russia then were so against the War had vested interests in Saddam remaining in power, they has alot of deals with him. So when America came up with this idea to invade and their was no deal for the French or the Russians well its no suprise they were against it.

[Geoffrey S]

Mixed. There were a number of reasons to invade Iraq, not the the atrocities pervaded by the likes of Saddam. If his regime could be toppled and replaced with a more stable system it would certainly have been worth it. It was quite obvious to all that the UN was wasting everybody's time, and has continued to do so in a number of issues since. Certainly the American military had the capacity to win a relatively quick war.

But. While there were reasons to invade Iraq, many more were invented to make the war a more pleasing to the American people. What WMDs? What terrorists operating from Iraq? There was no excuse to invent reasons to go to war, making the motives for war a highly dubious prospect. In the long run it has proven clear that there was no decent stategy for rebuilding Iraq, and the nation has had to suffer at the hands of suicide bombers and ineffectual puppet politicians alike. The rhetoric which was presented to the UN and people of America hardly helped convince people that the war was justified and has undermined a lot of the credibility the US possessed.

So while in principle I would have supported a war with clear reasons, as it stands this war was ill-founded and ill-planned and could have been resolved in other (and quite probably better) ways.

[yesdachi]

Nice response Soulforged. It appears that you really gave it some attention. I hate when posts get so big though and in an effort to keep things simple (I am at work) I wont use all the quotes and try to answer each comment with a “ya but…” answer. Note: some of my comments are not direct responses to your post but also to others.

The topic and some responses have made me wonder about some of the details and my opinions. I have done a little research online and by asking a few people I know that are better informed than me (not hard to find ), including two from the military, one of which has spent time at the Quantonimo Bay terrorist prison in Cuba. The research has led me to believe that…

The war is definitely good. That there were terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion and that there were absolutely connections between the Iraq government and terrorists, al Qaeda in particular. I wont waver on these points. But I also feel comfortable admitting that there were few traces of them in Iraq once we invaded. It makes sense that the terrorists would leave or hide knowing that the US was coming; it wasn’t like the invasion was a surprise (I feel the same about the WMD).

I also think that there were other options available to remove Saddam from power but none that would have worked as efficiently as the use of military force, which actually accomplished several goals collaterally. Trade sanctions and the like would have taken too long and hurt the Iraq people who Saddam already showed he didn’t give a whoot about. Because terrorism is such a difficult force for the US to battle I cannot think of a better way to start stopping it than by removing a terrorist supporting government (Knowing that it was there and not stopping it, is supporting it in my view. And the already established point that I am convinced that there were connections between the Iraq government and terrorists leads me to believe that they knew that terrorists were there).

The justification of causalities both military and civilian is a bit of a gray area for me. From a selfish point of view having an Iraq government that is friendly to the US, doesn’t support terrorism and good to its people is important to me but can I attach a number to how many deaths make it worthwhile? Nope, but I think it is important that we make sure things are stable there before we leave (huge generalization).

Additionally, there are economic reasons for the US to want to stabilize Iraq with a government that is friendly to the US but Iraq is not that economically important to the us and if it didn’t even exist (No, I am not suggesting we blow it away, just making a point) I don’t think that the US would be any worse off financially. I really don’t think that lower oil prices are reason for the war. There are already two gas stations in my city that are selling cheaper partially organic gas for cars. Oil and economic gain are definitely not the reasons for the war; they may be contributing factors but absolutely not the reason.

I am also not so sure that it is the US’s “job” or “place” to police other countries for terrorism but it is certainly an option. An option that doesn’t make everyone happy but it appears to be an effective one nonetheless, as there are without a doubt less active terrorists than before the “war on terror”. Will the war in Iraq or the war on terror completely stop terrorism? Not likely, but I think the US’s show of force and abilities have and will discourage terrorists from making open attacks and then trying to hide in another country to escape persecution.

Iraq War? Good. War on terror? Good. My opinion of people that have opinions different than mine? Good (Were hypocritical bastards that enjoy freedom of speech. Try and find that in Iraq before the US invasion).

Well the size of the post got away from me but again that’s what I think.

[Soulforged]

The problem is that if you believe that USA is the one with "the mission" then if terrorism appears in some way here for example that will justify the invasion and the killing of many innocents. Then they will say "but those civilians were supporting the terrorists". Do you see my point? With the military support and expansion that USA already has in all the world it can do this with the lower of difficulties.

I don't know about the reduction of terrorism i should look for statistics on that, but you can't be sure on the decrease of terrorists.
And i do believe that any given economy allied to another is beneficial to any nation. Besides winning on Iraq meant that Kuwait will never be under menaze again, therefore that assures the oil.

Someone above mentioned some evidence of zero link between Iraq and terrorism. How can it be that there's such a different perception of one single truth? We are not talking about colors, we're talking about a simple fact. Was there terrorism or not?

[Divinus Arma]

Find your inner milk.

Sponge: It's what's for dinner.