America and Iraq: the obvious question

[Fieryo]

I am somewhat interested in what other people think, seeing as how i am somewhat "sheltered" in my exposure to radically different opinions other than my own. So i would like to ask a question that i believe has no one answer and is viewed in many, many different lights. I hope this can remain respectful and condusive to a greater understanding of each other.

Knowing what we we know now, was America right to invade Iraq. And what should happen to Iraq and America's military forces now occupying it?

[mattywuh]

Oooo - this is gonna be another fun forum thread!!! Bit like that religion and science one methinks.


With hindsight...

I believe that the war was wrong. The evidence for Iraq holding WMDs was flawed, and deliberately misrepresented by my government to my nation, and by the US government to it's nation. It is clear, that for whatever motives - be they creating a state in the middle east to support Israel, oil, or just good old fasioned war-mongering - it was not about WMDs.


Without hindsight...

I held pretty much the same opinions before the war began - consistency is my forte, I'll say that.


With regards to the forces present in Iraq - I feel it is wrong to withdraw and let the situation descend into a greater level of anarchy than already exists. However, a force bearing the flags of the war waging nations alone will never be viewed positively by the Iraqis. A more multinational United Nations force could possibly act more effectively - yet this would require excessive diplomacy by Bush and Blair due to the blatant disregard they held for the organisation at the outset of war.

I'm not sure I can see that happening though.

[lackattack]

America thought Iraq had a set and was right to attack before Saddam cashed it in for 35 armies.

Seriously, my opinion is that the morality of the war is in the grey area and America's strategic mistake was dismantling the Iraqi army after the ground war because that army may have been able to prevent the insurgency from getting out of control.

[Fieryo]

wow, first off, honored to have you in here Lack. and second, awesome reference, once again i bow to you.

[Jucdor]

Knowing what we we know now, was America right to invade Iraq. And what should happen to Iraq and America's military forces now occupying it?

Strangely put question. If it was the other way around, was America right to invade Iraq based on what they knew back then, then I think you'd have more diversity of opinions. Now I'm surprised if anyone says America was right to attack Iraq.

Bush senior was right to attack, but Saddam pose no threath later on & it was evident already before the war that he could harm no one. I'm most pissed how Americans laughed to the UN weapons inspectors & made fun of them only to discover that their information about Iraq was pretty much the only accurate information Americans had.

[Hoff]

You can't count on the UN for anything.

[Fieryo]

Strangely put question. If it was the other way around, was America right to invade Iraq based on what they knew back then, then I think you'd have more diversity of opinions.

good point. but America did invade Iraq, its been done already and i think to focus on what should have done then is a moot point, because what happened happened, and there is no changing that.

[areon]

The UN does a lot actually but that isn't what this is about.

I have never supported pre-emptive war and never will. Chinese official joked about it but after the US government said it would invade Iraq they said it would be their right to attack Taiwan. Doing these kinds of actions just aggravates the world balance because it is aggression, doesn't matter if it is justified.

If you don't agree then you probably think that all Israel does is fine because the Palestinians will continue to bomb anyway.

[mikey6rocker]

Bush is a moron, lets leave it at that.

[kingwaffles]

Bush is a moron, lets leave it at that.

As much as I may agree with that statement I don't think insulting anyones's inteligence is going to get anyone anywhere. Both parties need to be able to sit down and talk everything over peacefully without resorting to character slander.
Personally I'm opposed to the war, mainly because I am a pacifist and am opposed to the idea of wars in general but also because of how the war was carried out. First of all the US starts it all off by ignoring the UN weapons inspectors and the UN's dissaproval of the war. Second of all, we were striking against them when we weren't even certain if they were holding thoughts of attacking us. This I find is one of the major problems with preemptive strikes, they're so uncertain and overtly aggresive. If think someone is gonna attack you, you don't just go and invade them....

[areyouincahoots]

Were we right to invade? Oh, my...interesting train of thought, really...Look at today minus the war...Saddam still in power with Iran the way it is...

YES! We were right...if nothing else, this will greatly increase our options when Iran forces us to take action...

Saddam is a horrid human being who deserves nothing better than rotting in prison...and I mean literally rotting! His past and tendancies bought him a forceful ticket out of the seat of government...we were just "lucky" enough to enforce it...

[Jucdor]

Saddam is a horrid human being who deserves nothing better than rotting in prison...and I mean literally rotting! His past and tendancies bought him a forceful ticket out of the seat of government...we were just "lucky" enough to enforce it...

Saddam Hussein is a bad man yes. In the early 90s Bush senior should've done his job properly and take him out. However he didn't, but he put a heavy blockade on Iraq instead. And thanks to that, has Saddam been able to do genocides or anything particularly bad during the 90s? No he hasn't. He was attacked based on his actions in 80s. In the 90s his hands were already tied & USA was acting just like a headless chicken running around without really knowning what to do. First attacking, then blockading & then attacking again no matter what the Iraq did. And this has been the worst scenario possible. I'm sure no one in Iraq wants Saddam back, but they still were better of with him than in the current situation where you don't know if you're shot to death when you leave your home.

YES! We were right...if nothing else, this will greatly increase our options when Iran forces us to take action...

I dare to disagree and so does Iran. The reason Iran is so strongly pursuing nuclear technology now is because they know that Americans are already stuck weist down in Iraq & thus can't do much about Iran. Sure your weapon arsenal is big enough to fight Iran & Iraq the same time, but your budjet isn't. And I'm sure neither is home front if they're presented with even more bills & more troops. I've heard discussion that if there will be a war against Iran (which is by all means many times tougher opponent than Iraq. Iran has a real army for christ sake) conscription has to be done in the States & that's not something Americans will take lightly.

So if nothing else, Iraq put you in worse position when facing Iran.

[mattywuh]

So if nothing else, Iraq put you in worse position when facing Iran.

Not to mention the effects it has had on popular opinion in all Islamic states. If America and any allies intend to initiate a conflict with Iran - the possibility of uprisings in 'moderate' (ie who work with the west - this term seems to take no account of human rights abuses) Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia.

Look at today minus the war...Saddam still in power with Iran the way it is...

There's no way you can predict whether the situation would've panned out in this way. It seems that you make the assumption that the Iran existing in 2003 would still become the same Iran we face today. The Iraq war had repurcussions for every state in the Middle East.

It is likely that Saddam would've remained in power without American led action. However, in my view we may not have faced such a fundamentalist Iranian leadership today, and reform in their state may have continued.

[mikey6rocker]

If we go into Iran all hell will break loose and people dont realize that because our government doesnt tell them.

[fishfleas]

I believe that the US did have evidence that supported their being weapons of mass distruction there. I believe also that a cop has the right to shoot someone if he thinks they are aiming a gun at him, regardless of whether it might be a toy. Sometimes you have to make decisions on what you know, and that is sometimes hard to tell. The US has found places that housed stashes of some of the ingredients for the weapons that they sought. It doesn't take a genius to know if you find the ingredients for meth in a meth addicts house to suspect him of making meth.... Same general idea applies here. So do I think invading was correct at the time? Yes. I do. However I do disagree with how Bush handled it. I think it could have been done in a better manner. However, I am NOT in parliment, I was NOT at the meetings and discussions. If you are trying to get support to take action against what you consider a lethal enemy then you don't let them stop you. Point being Bush made a hard decision, and we as Americans SHOULD support the decision until it is over.

This is just another of my huge beefs with the Media. The media shows us all the bad stuff because it's "Good" news. They tear down people because it's interesting. I dont' entirely agree with Bush on everything, but I think the people not keeping their mouths shut until it's over are 10 times worse. We have to trust our leaders in this, because that is what we have them in place for.

Support the troops.

[Hoff]

To a certain extent we have to trust out leaders. It is fine to be criticle and fine to disagree. But if our leaders did everything the people said then we probably wouldnt even be a nation anymore. The people are stupid, all people. The people's opinion's sway to fast. If our government was consitantly changing positions with its people then nothing would be accomplished. The people are too impatient for anything to happen. The people are there to check the government and influence legislation to a certain extent. But if we let the people decide everything with their swaying inconsistant opinion, then everything would just go to hell.

...meaning we have to stay in Iraq, even if the people of america are against it.

[areon]

Just because you are pulled over and a cop "finds" drugs in your trunk doesn't mean absolute certainty. People are arguing over the fact that maybe the government deliberately did actions it didn't have to. Someone already mentioned how a coalition was formed in the first war. That could've been done if the diplomacy was handled better. Then look at how the government said that if countries pulled their troops out they would lose bidding for rebuilding contracts.

As far as the public opinion, yeah it might not be the most important thing. It might help however to understand how much discontent can be placed on a country before they start bombing trains. Stupidity isn't some silly disregardable factor.

[mattywuh]

Someone already mentioned how a coalition was formed in the first war.

Just a point of fact - a coalition was formed in the second war too. Britain, Australia and Italy were significantly involved, and a number of other countries contributed troops also.

[fishfleas]

Also, originally the UN was approached to take action first.



As I said before though. I don't completely agree with how everything has been handled, but I do think it was the right thing to do. We should however support what is going on right now and do all we can to see that it isn't interupted by the swaying opinions of the people as Hoff so generously stated. He is right, today's society just sways to whatever the media puts in front of them. Which again is why I really don't like how the media is involved in so much these days. It's like the corrupt church of the midevil times, only in todays society. Too much influence looking too innocent.

[mattywuh]

In my view the media plays an important part as a check on government. Yes - it lies, distorts and misrepresents. But then so do governments.


I cannot put forth any knowledge of your own country's media service - but I feel that the various media outlets available to me provided a fairly decent spectrum of opinion. Prior to the war, various outlets supported action, a number clearly did not.

The public may not be as blind as has been attributed. Media are the masters of telling the population what they wish to hear. As public opinion moves, media outlets will move accordingly. In many ways they mirror political parties.

[Blitzkreig]

First off the UN is crap. It would be NOTHING without US support as proved in 1918 with the League of Nations with utterly failed. The UN is a way to make small countries feel important and serves little other purpose.

In Operation Desert Storm the US supplied 550,000 troops. All the other countries' troops in the coalition added together doesn't even equal this. The US provided all of the air power, tank power, and most of the thrust on the ground.

I have little support for the having to ask the permission of the UN before it can do anything. It's rediculous for the US, the largest, and only superpower in the world to have to ask Uganda's permission in order to wipe its ass.

Iraq WAS and IS a justifiable conflict. We put sanctions on Saddam, he didn't cooperate. He threatened with chemical weapons and even used them on the Kurds. He lied to weapons inspectors and eventually disallowed them from entering the country. He sponsored terrorists and supplied them with weapons.

In my opinion we found the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam and his oppressive dictatorship government. We have liberated thousands and now give democracy to the previously oppressed.

I back George W.

[Hoff]

The public may not be as blind as has been attributed. Media are the masters of telling the population what they wish to hear. As public opinion moves, media outlets will move accordingly. In many ways they mirror political parties.

The public is as blind as stevie wonder. The public doesnt dictate what the media feeds them. The media can almost completely ignore topics such as Dafur and focus on whatever they want like the war in Iraq. The media controls the people.

I can't wait till i'm a journalist, and if i'm lucky liberals will be running the US just so i will have a lot of fun fuel to tear them down and stick them in a whole with my words. I will enjoy it.

First off the UN is crap. It would be NOTHING without US support as proved in 1918 with the League of Nations with utterly failed. The UN is a way to make small countries feel important and serves little other purpose.

In Operation Desert Storm the US supplied 550,000 troops. All the other countries' troops in the coalition added together doesn't even equal this. The US provided all of the air power, tank power, and most of the thrust on the ground.

I have little support for the having to ask the permission of the UN before it can do anything. It's rediculous for the US, the largest, and only superpower in the world to have to ask Uganda's permission in order to wipe its ass.

Iraq WAS and IS a justifiable conflict. We put sanctions on Saddam, he didn't cooperate. He threatened with chemical weapons and even used them on the Kurds. He lied to weapons inspectors and eventually disallowed them from entering the country. He sponsored terrorists and supplied them with weapons.

In my opinion we found the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam and his oppressive dictatorship government. We have liberated thousands and now give democracy to the previously oppressed.

I back George W.

I agree that the UN is complete crap and almost useless. And if we didnt go to war with Iraq, everyone would be calling for war. The media would bring up all the atrocities that would be occuring in Iraq and get the people all fired up to go to war. People would be critizing Bush for not going to war. So it just proves that the media covers what they want, and the people will mindlessly follow.

[Jucdor]

First of all, I think that pulling the troops away now would be the worst & most irresponsible thing to do. You've messed things up, you clean it.

First off the UN is crap. It would be NOTHING without US support as proved in 1918 with the League of Nations with utterly failed. The UN is a way to make small countries feel important and serves little other purpose.

In Operation Desert Storm the US supplied 550,000 troops. All the other countries' troops in the coalition added together doesn't even equal this. The US provided all of the air power, tank power, and most of the thrust on the ground.

Since when has the UN even tried to be a military organisation? You have NATO for that. United Nations together with football is the only thing that truly unites the Earth. And it is funny to see American leaders to mock UN & yet they know that it's the only place they can get backup & global support for their actions. If UN was useless then Bush wouldn't have tried to the last to get UN's approval to the war in Iraq.

I have little support for the having to ask the permission of the UN before it can do anything. It's rediculous for the US, the largest, and only superpower in the world to have to ask Uganda's permission in order to wipe its ass.

No, USA can wipe its ass as many times it wants, but if you're going to wipe my ass then you damn well need to get a permission for that from somewhere at least to get public opinion to support your action that yes, indeed my ass is shitty & it need to be wiped if I'm not going to do that myself. Otherwise you're just seen as a tyrant & oppressor like you are seen in the muslim world. With a good reason as well.

Iraq WAS and IS a justifiable conflict. We put sanctions on Saddam, he didn't cooperate. He threatened with chemical weapons and even used them on the Kurds. He lied to weapons inspectors and eventually disallowed them from entering the country. He sponsored terrorists and supplied them with weapons.

Just because some country doesn't want to jump when you say jump, doesn't mean that attacking it is justifiable. Yes, it was stupid thing to do to now fully cooperate, but it still isn't enough to justify an action. And yes, Iraq had chemical weapons in the 80s, but not anymore under the sanctions as the weapons inspectors found out.

In my opinion we found the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam and his oppressive dictatorship government. We have liberated thousands and now give democracy to the previously oppressed.

I back George W.

You have liberated Iraq when things cool down & people can work, have family, walk the streets & live a normal life without having to fear for their lives. During Saddam's rule at least they could exit their house without fearing for instant death.

[Jucdor]

I agree that the UN is complete crap and almost useless. And if we didnt go to war with Iraq, everyone would be calling for war. The media would bring up all the atrocities that would be occuring in Iraq and get the people all fired up to go to war. People would be critizing Bush for not going to war. So it just proves that the media covers what they want, and the people will mindlessly follow.

Like the imaginary atrocities that were taking place under sanctions? I'm not saying that Saddam's reign in the 90s was a pleasant one, but it surely wasn't anything worse than in any other Middle Eastern country.

As far as I know, during Clinton's Era there was no pressure to attack Iraq. It was Bush himself that from the very beginning of his presidency started to wage war against Iraq & made an issue about it. Thanks to 9/11 he just had to goto Afganistan first before he could attack where he originally wanted to.

[mattywuh]

Iraq WAS and IS a justifiable conflict. We put sanctions on Saddam, he didn't cooperate. He threatened with chemical weapons and even used them on the Kurds. He lied to weapons inspectors and eventually disallowed them from entering the country. He sponsored terrorists and supplied them with weapons.

I accept all these arguments as being criteria to justify a war - except the last. Saddam Hussein did not sponser Islamic Fundamentalists - his state was secular. His whole regime attempted to suppress religion as much as was feasible. Following the war he made last ditch attempts to create a rising amongst his population - attempting to portray it as a holy war.

Al Qaeda would never support Saddam Hussein, they are present in Iraq for their own goals. They wanted this conflict as much as any in the White House. We played into their hands.

The public is as blind as stevie wonder. The public doesnt dictate what the media feeds them. The media can almost completely ignore topics such as Dafur and focus on whatever they want like the war in Iraq. The media controls the people.

Well, if that's your opinion of your public let it be. Although, would that imply that the media controls the elections too?

I have a little more faith in the population of my own country.

I have little support for the having to ask the permission of the UN before it can do anything. It's rediculous for the US, the largest, and only superpower in the world to have to ask Uganda's permission in order to wipe its ass.

Superpowers rise, superpowers fall. That's the way things work. Roll on China...

Seriously though - I accept some arguments as to why a war must have been necessary. I myself never dismissed conflict as an option. However, I felt that there was still time to follow other options - and when these options were exhausted it probably would've been a war under the banner of the UN with Nato forces. I just wonder why the Bush administration was in such a rush.