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

Probably all bored of this... but humour me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraq War... what a mess. What I'd like to know is what your position is in hindsight before the war started. Let's say Bush and Blair decided not to treat us like children and explained that they knew Saddam had nothing to do with 911, that they weren't sure about WMD and sold the war as a humanitarian mission. Let's exclude tactics on the ground, Guantanamo, Fallujah, war profiteers and dodgy contractors - though by all means talk about that if you want. but ultimately I want to know if you would support a war to overthrow a broken back dictator like Saddam even if you knew what we know now, not how the war was carried out but the real reasons for going in, and if not would there be any conditions in which you would support regime change?

The Ba'ath party regime - very brutal, Saddam, a sadist, a megalomaniac, a huge fan of Hitler and Stalin. Iran - the Islamic revolution and this Khomeini fella rub America and Saddam up the wrong way. So America and a bunch of other westerners start arming Saddam to the teeth and encouraging him to take on Iran... stating that they would be a push-over, or something along those lines I'm paraphrasing here. Iran turns out to be a tough cookie, and the war is a horrible 9 years, both countries suffering millions of casualties. Neither country could claim victory and America decides - first because Saddam was using biochemical weapons (and therefore not playing by the rules) and because Saddam invades Kuwait, to stop Saddam. Saddam is crushed, the people revolt, Saddam kills some 300,000 of them - seemingly venting frustration and confirming who's boss.

Fast forward to march 2003 the invasion begins after 9/11 attacks, on the premise that Saddam probably has WMD. Now... there was no weapons, and not much evidence to that effect, other than the fact that America and Britain knew he had the materials... because apparently they had sold them to him during the Iran war. During the invasion materials are "being looted" and transported across the border into Jordan, and to a destination unknown. The war has radicalized the region more than ever. Which stands to reason, when bombs are reigning down and innocent people are getting blown up, Osamas teachings start to sound much more profound, the invasion is used as powerful propaganda.

There's so many discrepancies, the mind boggles. But aside from that Saddam and the Ba'ath parties' regime are violating human rights everyday, Saddam's people live in perpetual fear. Similar to the atrocities occurring under Bashar in Syria, it's hard for the international community to watch and not advocate "regime change". (But, that's not how the war was sold) Hence the argument for going in with the premise that Saddam has to go regardless of WMD uncertainty, the fact that we armed him in the first place, or radicalisation of the area, the oil aspect etc.

It seems to me all we have left to justify the war is the cruelty displayed by Saddam... is that enough?

Is it the war itself that was wrong or the way it was sold and carried out?

JohnConstantine, et al,

What was it then compared to now?

The salient points expressed in an Exchange to the Intelligence Forum; PRIOR to the Invasion.

Originally Posted by Sun Feb 9 16:07:07 EST 2003

Mr McNiff - et al,

TOPIC: WMDs in Iraq
Reference: My Previous comment.

I have little doubt that Iraq has UNSC Res 1441 prohibited items. But
by the same token I have to admit that I have not seen either credible
intelligence or forensic evidence discovered by either the US,
supporting allies, or the UNMOVIC and the IAEA Teams to either confirm
my suspicious or negate them.
-----------------------------(SKIP)----------------------------------
From a strict constructionist and objective point of view, I found
Secretary Powell's presentation interesting, but not compelling.
-----------------------------(SKIP)----------------------------------
As you know, the two of the facilities that Secretary Powell identified
as clandestine WMD facilities, were visited nearly a dozen times by UN
Inspectors. No forensic evidence of NBC manufacturing was found. Now
how can that be if there were no level 4 containment facilities? (That
is something you can't hide.) This is an indicator (leading to the
suspicion) that the intelligence used was either faulty or manipulated.

Remember, all WMD construction/R&D facilities leave a footprint of some
sort.

Rocco Rosano

SOURCE: WMDs in Iraq

I took a lot of heat from my peers for taking a position counter to the prevailing wisdom of the day.

Having said that and being somewhat vindicated, I recommend you take a moment and listen to this NPR Segment (All Things Considered) on the topic. A Peek Inside The CIA, As It Tries To Assess Iran NPR

It is all about how you think. My opinion has not changed. The rush to judgment is very similar to vigilanteism. Once they invoke that a given target is a threat to national security, anyone that does not think along those lines is "unAmerican". It is the same as the AIRPAC judgement; anyone that doesn't lock step and stand behind Israel is a "Jew Hater." The pressures to conform to the "Group Thought" are enormous. And once the decision is made, it will never be reversed. Notice in the NPR Segment, if they (CIA Analyst) did it again today, they would come to the same conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

I was not in favor of the decision to go into Iraq.

Personally, I saw no logic in it at the time. I believed then, and am witness now that dismantling/removing Saddam Hussein and his regime would have a destabilizing effect on the region.

I'm confident that privately, there are some in leadership roles that feel the same (now).

I wanted us to conquer Iraq in 1991 and divide it three ways: one third to be a permanent UN-controlled territory, one third given to the Soviet Union in exchange for releasing Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and one third as a homeland for the Palestinians.
In 2000 I wanted Bush Jr. to make deposing Saddam Husein a campaign promise. I voted for him with absolute confidence that he would remove him during his first term and I celebrated when we did it.
My cousin was wounded twice in Iraq. I knew he would be and applauded his efforts.

The Christian and Jewish zionists had been trying to get US troops over there for decades.

9/11 gave them the excuse.

I don't think the US has ever gone to war without its citizens being lied to.

Myself, I thought they should have been eliminated in 1991. But by 2003 it was no longer a question in my mind.

After being almost ignored, in 1990 they suddenly became the center of the attention of the world. And after the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War, they could have made the choices to work to regain legitimacy among the nations of the world.

Instead we had increased greed and corruption in their government, and mass graves that are still being discovered in the desert, even almost a decade after the end of the war. Saddam's government has gone down as one of the most genocidal in history, only falling in behind Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot in the number of it's own citizens killed.

http://www.kurdishglobe.net/display-...9A86D7D2F682BA

Personally, I have never cared much about the "Chemical Weapons" claims. That to me has always been very low to me for the justifications needed to enter and dispose of that thug. I look at the numbers of people killed, both in his own country and others (Iran, Kuwait) at his orders and thought it should have stopped over a decade earlier then it did.

But Saddam and the Ba'ath Party in 1991 had a chance to clean up their act, but they refused. And instead of a nation trying to "clean up it's act" and behave like modern nations should, we had a nation that continued to kill it's own citizens, corrupt a world body with "oil for food", and to constantly violate the terms of it's own peace treaty repeatedly.

We needed to be honest we wanted a military position in the region to protect OUR oil interests and to secure them, and since Saddam was a "bad man" we put into power or not it was then fine to invade. Why lie, we wanted the oil before China made more inroads into the region.

Originally Posted by tkolter

We needed to be honest we wanted a military position in the region to protect OUR oil interests and to secure them, and since Saddam was a "bad man" we put into power or not it was then fine to invade. Why lie, we wanted the oil before China made more inroads into the region.

What oil interests? This is an argument I don't understand. The U.S. receives relatively little of its oil from the Middle East and almost none of it from Iraq. How has the war benefited the U.S. in terms of access to oil resources? What significant amount of oil is the U.S. getting from Iraq that it wasn't before 2003?

Originally Posted by Angedras

I was not in favor of the decision to go into Iraq.

Personally, I saw no logic in it at the time. I believed then, and am witness now that dismantling/removing Saddam Hussein and his regime would have a destabilizing effect on the region.

I'm confident that privately, there are some in leadership roles that feel the same (now).

Are you referring to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria? If so, aren't some of these changes good?

Originally Posted by Angedras

I was not in favor of the decision to go into Iraq.

Personally, I saw no logic in it at the time. I believed then, and am witness now that dismantling/removing Saddam Hussein and his regime would have a destabilizing effect on the region.

I'm confident that privately, there are some in leadership roles that feel the same (now).

I was also against it , I could not figure out why we were doing it , it really woke me up.