What do you think about the invasion of Iraq?!
I think it was a bad decision. Thousands of soldiers died.
Printable View
What do you think about the invasion of Iraq?!
I think it was a bad decision. Thousands of soldiers died.
Good. It removed a terrible dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, started several wars of expansion, and was trying to get WMDs, and brought freedom and democracy to millions.
Crazed Rabbit
good.
Dictator out. Freedom in. It is taking a lot longer than I think it should but it needed to happen. The sad part is that the US has to be the one to help the people of Iraq do it. In essence the war in Iraq is just an extension of the US’s war on terrorism and I am passionate that any terrorists be destroyed. Especially when they threaten my country and my countries allies.
I think that the people of Iraq will love freedom and a few thousand deaths are well worth the stability a free Iraq will bring to the world.
THis thread will not remain civil for long - a sad prediction on my part.
I think its bad but necessary thing to do, like many other wars before it and many wars still to come. :bow:
Depends on your viewpoint. If you look at it in terms of a personal viewpoint, it was a waste of soldiers and supplies. From a national and objective viewpoint, however, it was appropriate, because it removed an enemy of the United States, and put us on the road to a long-overdue imperialist expansion.
That's not sarcasm. I can be a cold bastard when I want to.
Bad.
It is draining our military resources when they should be engaged in fighting the so-called war on terror. Yes, Saddam was a dictator and is a bad, bad man. But so are many, many other rulers around the world. If that is to be the standard then we might as well start up the draft now; because we have a lot of work to do. If removing one dictator is a good thing; then it must apply to others, correct? Otherwise claiming so is using a double standard.
If it was only about removing Saddam, then stop claiming that it was done to bring "democracy and freedom" to Iraq unless there's a willingness to bring it to the people of other contries as well. Anything else is blatant hypocrisy, isn't it? Especially coming from a president who stated flat out in a debate in 2000 that he didn't think our military should be engaged in nation building.
If it's all about imposing freedom and democracy on people, then we'd better get started. The list is long. Of course, some on the list are supposedly our "allies" in the war on terror. But it's all about removing dictators and bringing freedom and democracy to other countries, right? Right? That's what's been stated - over and over. As if saying it will make it true. If it was the reason for the Iraq war, then doesn't it apply elsewhere as well?
We could start with North Korea. The NK leadership have killed more of their own people than Saddam ever dreamed of doing to his own. They actually have nuclear weapons, rather than just rumors and innuendo. Don't they fit the criteria spouted by people who think we were justified in invading Iraq? Dictator. Check. Dictators killed many of their own people. Check. Torturers. Check. WMDs. Check. Supports terrorism. Check. Exports military technology to other suspect countries. Check. Am I missing anything? Maybe invading Iraq wasn't about dictators and WMDs after all? I wonder.
How about Turkmenistan? The leader of that country prefers to be called "the Great Turkmen" and is a certifiable megalomaniac. He tortures and kills his own people, renamed the official calendar months for members of his own family, and the only textbook allowed in his schools is his autobiography. They guy makes Saddam look like Mother Theresa. Then again, he did sign a multi-billion dollar deal with Halliburton to develop his Caspian Sea oil and natural gas resources. I guess he could be worse than Hitler and we still wouldn't bother him, eh?
Sudan? Iraq? Syria? Most of West Africa? Zimbabwe?
How about Morocco invading and occupying the Western Sahara? Nah, we should just let that slide too; after all, they're an "ally" on the war on terror.
So many countries run by dictators, some even have WMDs too, and so little time.
And then, of course, there's the whole bit about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. Uh huh. Take a good look at the Iraqi constitution that was just sent to the assembly for approval. It clearly says that Islamic law, the Shari-a, will be the main basis for Iraqi law. So much for democracy, if women will still be chattel and unbelievers are left out. The Kurds are furious. And all this despite Bush promising last year that the Iraqi constitution would include protections for minorities and women's rights. Uh huh.
So, really. Did we invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad, bad, evil man? If so, there are plenty of others. Was it about WMDs? North Korea has them. Pakistan has them, and the head of its nuclear weapons program admitted to selling information to Libya, Iran and other countries. Was it about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraqis? There are plenty more countries to invade then. Or are we just hypocrites, making up excuses?
Good for the world, bad for the Iraqis
possibly a noble idea, but i don't think a whole lot of thought went into the planning and rebuilding... and possibly very niave to think that 'western' values are universaly accepted and would be embraced by iraqis...
ignorance of, or choosing to ignore age old hatreds and vendettas that sadman was able to keep a lid on by his own brutality.... american and her allies lifes are not worth iraqi democracy imho...
That cartoon is on target in many respects, the "symbolic gestures" part is my favorite. I see a certain someone standing on an aircraft carrier with a sign above his head reading, "Mission Accomplished" and that same someone carrying around a prop turkey.
As for overall effect, it remains to be be seen. Events that have not yet happened will determine whether it is judged good or bad in the long run. Will the Iraqi's end up with a stable representative govt? A long messy civil war? A theocracy? Nobody can say yet. Will the false WMD claims and/or inattention to Afghanistan, Korea, etc. leave us in worse shape long term...again, only time will tell. We've all got a stake in hoping that mistakes already made don't prove fatal to the effort.
If they do, then it will have been worth it, despite everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I'm not holding my breath though. :embarassed:
Speaking of inattention to Afghanistan...
65 U.S. service personnel have lost their lives in Afghanistan so far this year. That is more than at any time since the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I wonder if that would be true if we were still looking for bin Laden and seeking out Taliban rather than off adventuring in Iraq for some nebulous and often-changing raison d'jour.
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?Quote:
It is draining our military resources when they should be engaged in fighting the so-called war on terror.
Rhetoric vs reality?
That doesnt even make sense. 65 Americans died in Afghanistan because they weren't looking for bin Laden or fighting the Taliban? What were they doing then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
War is like Chemotherapy.
Both are bad if just looked at by themselves.
Both need proper support and long term planning to minimise side effects. Neither always end up working.
The death rates are higher then we expect based on mass media.
All other options need to be exhausted before using them as they are the an option that can escalate the problem as easily as solve it.
Even after completion it can take decades to get back to normal and in some cases their are long term side effects that effect the vitality of the recipient forever.
They seem to be under-supported. Badly so. With the administration, the public, and the media all turned their full attentions to Iraq the US troops at Afghanistan seems to me are clearly neglected, without proper plans in place. Also, with all the resources needed to hold onto Iraq the prospects of reinforcements joining the already existing US forces in Afghanistan in their practically unheard-of operations (whatever they are doing) is very low indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Well sign me up. The UN has no teeth and will not do a god damn useful thing. There can be no greater mission then to freeing people who are living in such places. I'll go, it to save one person it will be enough.
There is: stay alive. It's the ultimate mission of everybody, except if you're an evil genius then your mission is obviously to conquer the whole world. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Nice try. Can you prove that they have had everything they needed, particualrly a good plan from above, and a workable strategy for long term stability?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
We've set Afghanistan on the backburner rebuilding wise. It's a strategic postwar blunder. Pulling it out of the dark ages is a way to win hearts and minds, and give the people something to support, rather then the Taliban. We've had similar problems in Iraq. We can deliver militarily, but have not shown the follow through in other aspects. It's a leadership problem, right at the top.
Id say Iraq is the Good , the Bad and the Ugly. ~;)
Its just a matter of prospective.
Iraq was living on borrowed time before the invasion. The kurds, Syria, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have carved out their own piece of Iraq the moment Saddam lost is power or got killed. It was just a matter of time before somebody would have got him. The following civilwar would have wreaked havoc in the region, made oil prices insane (even worse than now) and Iraq would have ended up in pieces.....
So the invasion, well, US decided to be the katalysator for the coming and pay out of it's nose to get the title......
Your most likely more correct then many would image.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Bad - it's placed the world in a precarious position that Iran and North Korea are very difficult to deal with.
Iraq was a containable threat - however due to the invasion of it, the world no longer has the ability to go in and occupy either North Korea or Iran - which are threats that cannot be contained by non military threats.
Quite frankly if I had to choose between Iran or N. Korea gaining nuclear weapons or Iraqis staying under Saddam/next evil dictator for the next 100 years, the Iraqis can suffer. As it is currently, the US is hamstrung - nothing short of an attack will move them to invade either NK or Iran. Thanks for invading the wrong member of the "Axis of evil".
We all volunteered. That doesn't mean we want to die. But we know the risks.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Try and find reasons other than "soldiers are dying". If that was the case, we would never fight any war, regardless of the consequences of our staying out.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I beleive it was a good idea as have many have said it removed a vicious dictator which killed thousands of people before hand. It needed to be done and it was.
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.
Actually that's a very good point Ragnar.Quote:
we need to sort problems in our own country before we try to help others.
Good or bad? That's a stark choice for such a complex situation.
I'm happy Saddam Hussain is gone. I'm happy that the Iraqi's have the prospect of better lives. So I would consider that "good".
However it can be seen as bad as I suspect that it will increase rather than decrease the threat of global terrorism.
The war appears to have been based on badly spun and dubious intelligence making the US and Britain look stupid at best and sinister at worse - which doesn't help long term goals.
I think that war should be the last resort, entered into after all other options are exhausted - in the case of Iraq, I don't think that's the case.