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

Discussion in 'Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution' started by JohnConstantine, May 14, 2012.

  1. JohnConstantine

    JohnConstantine Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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?
     
    COL TALBOT likes this.
  2. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    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.

    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
     
    COL TALBOT likes this.
  3. Angedras

    Angedras New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).
     
  4. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  5. ejca

    ejca Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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-article.html?id=8A354B2AE068AD82699A86D7D2F682BA

    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.
     
  7. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    RoccoR and (deleted member) like this.
  8. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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?
     
  9. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you referring to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria? If so, aren't some of these changes good?
     
  10. submarinepainter

    submarinepainter Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was also against it , I could not figure out why we were doing it , it really woke me up.
     
  11. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am a veteran of both Operation Desert Shield/Storm in '90-'91 (1 TDY to Saudi Arabia) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) '04, '06 (2 TDY to S.W. Asia)

    You can't cry over spilled milk...I have no opinion on it anymore.

    Only history can judge it now, as it's done n' dusted.
     
  12. Angedras

    Angedras New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fair question IisB,

    To be honest, when I first post to this thread, I was thinking more about the ever increasing tension and upheaval with Iran.

    The U.S. could have kept it's thumb on Saddam/Iraq, which would have kept Iran in check. Why? No question Iran feared Saddam, weather it was actually warranted or not (Iran didn't know Iraq really didn't have WMD's). But they were well aware that Saddam would have no hesitation in knocking on their door.

    Deposing him and dismantling Iraq, opened the door for Iran to further it's ambitions. We have all been witness to that. And one would be remiss to believe that the situation is going to do anything but get more complicated.

    Right or wrong, as long as the U.S. stands steadfast with Israel, Iran is a problem/threat to the U.S.. Could things change? Sure, but not likely.

    More specifically (briefly) to your question...


    Tunisia perhaps, although a work in progress.

    Egypt no (IMO), there is no indication that things for the average Egyptian has improved. If anything, conditions have only worsened. Aside from that, speaking again to U.S. interest. Within Two weeks of Mubarak leaving power, Iran put warships through the Suez Canal, something that he never allowed. Again, Iran flexing, and Egypt aligning with them to the determent of Israel and the U.S.'s seemingly endless interest in supporting them.

    Libya? Again, conditions have worsened. Don't read me wrong, I was certainly no fan of Qaddafi (and think Reagan should have taken him out), but he posed no threat to U.S. interest at the time of his death.

    Finally, Syria. *sigh* I really don't know what to think of the situation. Surely Assad is a lackey of Iran, and it makes me sick to think of his innocent civilians being killed in the streets on a recurring (daily) basis. But what to do? I don't have an answer, honestly. If the U.S. gets involved militarily, in likelihood all hell is going to erupt through the region, and judging from the aforementioned states, the result may prove more regrettable than the current situation.

    An old adage comes to mind... "Sometimes the devil you know, is better than the one you don't know."

    My apologies if my ramblings make no sense. I often have reasonable thoughts, but trying to express them in written form seems to go to hell. LOL

    Thanks for the question, AND, I completely agree with you about the whole U.S./Iraq oil interest protection BS. Your post was spot on. I never understood why so many person seem to use that in conversation.

    Regards
     
  13. EFFIT

    EFFIT New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty sure a certain West Virginia native was sent back. Other than that it's good and scary simultaneously that the realization hit me that I don't know anything about it except that war is a sadly tragic time for everyone. I wish there were never any wars and still i know nothing.
     
  14. EFFIT

    EFFIT New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The war on marijuana now that is certainly a load of crap and everyone knows it. If most the people who are legally responsible for our country's welfare aren't eating it or smoking they have to be popping Valium or Xanex at night because the with my 3 times voting I feel personally responsible for everything. EEEK! I'm mental that way.
     
  15. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. I think next time politicians are ready to rush us into another war, they should take a step back, and think about what happened in Iraq.
     
  16. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You'll never get an answer to this question. Whenever it is asked, they instantly shut up, because the answer doesn't fit with their preconceived notions that America is the most evil nation on the planet who engages in war for petty reasons.
     
  17. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why is it you think Saddam's life trumps those of thousands of others? No the Iraq War was ENTIRELY without moral reason. It was an aggressive, unproductive war that has done more damage than good to everyone involved.
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I cna answer the question easy. The war was fought for perceived geo-strategic gains. This includes access to resources like oil. This does not make Americans evil, it makes then ignorant. It does however make American leaders morally incompetent.
     
  19. dumba

    dumba New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We don't take into account that the things are the other way round in islamic states. We consider their way of life and ruling cruel, but it's normal for them.

    And one more point! How do we know that Saddam's regime is brutal and sadistic? Can you say for sure that the stories CNN or ABC show us are truthful? If you totally believe TV then you didn't see 'Wag the dog' movie. The reality is not the same we watch it on our screens!!!
     
  20. Ninth

    Ninth New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iraq was a bad idea born out of the "Who's next" attitude that we managed to acquire post 9/11. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, then found the nearest country that objected and gave them a good kicking in the teeth. Afghanistan man have had a moral objective. Iraq was a "Watch what happens world." move pure and simple.
     
  21. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Ninth, et al,

    There is little doubt, people had attitude attitude back in 2002 and 2003.

    (COMMENT)

    But we hurt the US by staying.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  22. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, its cruel. There is increasingly more dissent and protest over such issues in those countries as evidence to the fact.

    Mate, Saddam was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up sob. There's a reason they called him 'The Butcher of Baghdad.'
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was against both the first and second war.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, it was merely a form of "job creation" by elected representatives who have no real solutions to our modern social dilemmas because they can't seem to bear true witness to our own laws, simply and merely due to a lack of a morals test and a drug test, at the same time.
     
  25. Mayerling

    Mayerling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would agree with this assessment. The Iraq invasion and occupation may also have been- see what the public reaction is so we can do the same to Syria and Iran- more or less what you said in your last sentence.
     

Share This Page