Thread: What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

Originally Posted by expatriate

I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power. As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another

Murdering hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds is keeping the peace?

2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony

This is debatable. He fought a very costly war with Iran for years that destabilized the region and cost millions of lives. I think in the long term a functioning democratic Iraq (should it get there) would be a lot more of a thorn in Iran's side than Saddam ever was.

3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

While not directly tied to AQ, he had shown plenty of support for Islamic extremists over the years. The war in Iraq also attracted a lot of these types....who were killed by the boatload. AQ actually ended up completely alienating the population of Iraq with its brutality. There was an outright mini-war between Iraqi militias and AQ. Iraq isn't a hotbed of AQ recruitment.

If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

I think this is the main question at hand. Was it worth it? I don't think we'll be able to tell for 10-20 years. People expect results far to fast. We had members of Congress in 2006/2007 outright declaring the War lost....and look what happened after the surge. Americans are too impatient to consider the long term future of Iraq. If Iraq can develop into a stable Democracy in the next few decades, it could potentially lead to other dictatorships in the region loosening their grips. In such a scenario the Iraq war could end up being a flashpoint for change.

In my opinion, we could have enjoyed stable fuel prices and a lower tax burden arising from conflict in the Middle East, merely by regulating well, Commerce among the several States of the Union.

This is what our federal Congress is delegated the power to do:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There is no specific enumeration for providing for the common Offense or the general Warfare of the United States; thus, no power delegated for a warfare-state as there is for a welfare-state.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." - The Federalist Papes

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Murdering hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds is keeping the peace?

To Liberals it is, because obviously those events never happened.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

This is debatable. He fought a very costly war with Iran for years that destabilized the region and cost millions of lives. I think in the long term a functioning democratic Iraq (should it get there) would be a lot more of a thorn in Iran's side than Saddam ever was.

Personally, I have little hopes for any Islamic nation in the region to ever be "Democratic". I simply do not see the Radical elements ever allowing that to happen. Oh, there may be some "Democratic" illusions, but I do not see it happening within the next 50 years unless the region has a fundamental paradigm shift to it's beliefs.

In general, the most I generally hope for is a more benevolent dictator or Monarchy.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

While not directly tied to AQ, he had shown plenty of support for Islamic extremists over the years. The war in Iraq also attracted a lot of these types....who were killed by the boatload. AQ actually ended up completely alienating the population of Iraq with its brutality. There was an outright mini-war between Iraqi militias and AQ. Iraq isn't a hotbed of AQ recruitment.

Saddam has long supported and funded terrorism. From bombers in Israel, to harboring known terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ilich Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal). And al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was even hospitalized outside of Baghdad while recovering from wounds recieved in the fighting in Afghanistan. I do not think that Saddam ever had any direct ties to al-Qaeda. But I also do not doubt that he was a supporter of their efforts, since it's main target was the US.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

I think this is the main question at hand. Was it worth it? I don't think we'll be able to tell for 10-20 years. People expect results far to fast. We had members of Congress in 2006/2007 outright declaring the War lost....and look what happened after the surge. Americans are too impatient to consider the long term future of Iraq. If Iraq can develop into a stable Democracy in the next few decades, it could potentially lead to other dictatorships in the region loosening their grips. In such a scenario the Iraq war could end up being a flashpoint for change.

I doubt that terrorism will ever go away. It is simply to easy. However, that does not mean to me that the effort against it should stop, simply because it will never fully work. That is the same kind of thinking that goes with racism. Since you will never end it, why fight it?

Well, it will never be ended. But we can at least do what we can to try and keep it contained.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In my opinion, we could have enjoyed stable fuel prices and a lower tax burden arising from conflict in the Middle East, merely by regulating well, Commerce among the several States of the Union.

Uh-huh. And exactly how would this have stabilized the price of oil? You might as well try and make the same claim for anything from gold and silver to soy beans and wheat.

Oil is an International commodity. And the US can no more have a major long-term affect on it's price then it can with any other commodity. Yes, we can cause it to rise and fall in the short term based on what we do. But we can never either make it fall to $50 a barrel, nor cause it to rise to $200 a barrel for anything other then a short term.

It is our public policy initiatives that are a cause of price changes in the Middle East; we could have simply upgraded their infrastructure for less.

Until March 28, 2000 when OPEC adopted the $22-$28 price band for the OPEC basket of crude, real oil prices only exceeded $30.00 per barrel in response to war or conflict in the Middle East. With limited spare production capacity, OPEC abandoned its price band in 2005 and was powerless to stem a surge in oil prices, which was reminiscent of the late 1970s.

Source: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It is our public policy initiatives that are a cause of price changes in the Middle East; we could have simply upgraded their infrastructure for less.

And that is completely flat chart, with absolutely no adjustment for inflation or monetary exchange values. And it totally ignored everything else in it's factors. World supply and demand, greed, and one of the largest factors, FUD.

FUD (and now speculation) are the largest drivers of oil prices. For example, look at that giant spike at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. Oil rose dramatically after the Revolution, then suddenly flatlined then decreased after Iraq invaded Iran. And it then dropped almost as fast, and stayed there even during the shellings and counter-shellings Iran and Iraq made at each other. Even during the era of the Tanker War, when both sides were attacking the tankers of neutral nations all through the area. But where is the increase? With your claim, then the price should have continued to rise even more, but that was simply not the case.

In fact, the largest spike once adjusted for inflation is undoubtedly the 1979 Iranian Revolution spike. Although this was more to do with their decrease in production, and nations like the US having to find new sources. The Gulf War spike was almost a joke, since it was largely the same thing. Kuwait was one of the largest suppliers of oil for the UK and Europe, and their scramble to find another source caused a small short term jump in prices.



A common site in Europe, I wonder where the name of this chain of gas stations came from?

But by the time the war actually happened, the price had already pretty much returned to pre-war prices. The rate hikes in the last decade have much more to do with speculation then anything else.

Besides, why should we upgrade their infrastructure? That is their job, not ours.

It would have been cheaper than the general warfare or our common offense in that region. Paying higher fuel prices merely for the sake of politics can be considered a form of double taxation.

The Iraq war was immoral and illegal. If the US and its allies actually cared about Iraqis, they would have ceased funding for Saddam's regime years before, plus they would have ended earlier sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands - way more than Saddam ever did.

As I said before, I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power. As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony
3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

Originally Posted by expatriate

As I said before, I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

That's a bit much. There are probably worse policy decisions - like arming extremists in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Originally Posted by expatriate

Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power.

Indeed, and the fact the US supported Saddam for so long doesnt really help their case of humanitarianism.

Originally Posted by expatriate

As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony
3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

Plus he also posed little to no external threat at that point in time.

Originally Posted by expatriate

If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

But then elites would not have profited and policy makers would be more insecure about the future (although that is also debatable).