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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Care to back up your question? ~D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
“…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. :bow:
No flame war intended, but are you sure not to think about Syria or Iran or Pakistan instead of Irak?Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
To my knowlage, Irak has not been involved in terrorist activities, at the difference of those countries.
Can you provide informations?
Way to offer support to your allies. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
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. :bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
But i fully agree on your point about the general US public perception about Irak, seen as an ennemy since gulf war I.
Same as above, i think you are right on this point.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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)
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"Quote:
“…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.
And how will be that. ~:confused:Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
So bring on the people that think I am wrong or an idiot, I don’t care, this is what I think. :bow:[/
Agree with this too. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
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.
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 ~:cheers: (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.
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?
Find your inner milk.
Sponge: It's what's for dinner.