Should we have gone to Iraq? I need to know why you say yes/no
- Thread starter Chiboy
- Start date
No, I don't think the administration fully realized the consequences of thier actions. They had the worst case threat assessment and the best case assessment of the aftermath.
No, maybe after we caught Bin Laden. If we had sent 125,000 troops to Afghanistan, we might have done more to fight terrorism than we did in Iraq.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Yes. A UN resolution called for Saddam to fully comply with prior resolutions and disarmament after 12 years of deception and he didn't (wouldn't allow out of country interviews with scientists, was developing long range missile...to deliver what...I don't know). Going into Iraq is the equivalent of going into Afghanistan pre 9/11 in that it would have caused the same International flap...but we all know what should have been done in that case don't we.
That's the summary.
That's the summary.
No.
Iraq posed almost no threat to the United States or to its neighbors given the conditions extant in March of 2003. Iraq was a big pain in the ass to the international community, but that should never be a sufficient basis for a preemptive war.
-Robert
Iraq posed almost no threat to the United States or to its neighbors given the conditions extant in March of 2003. Iraq was a big pain in the ass to the international community, but that should never be a sufficient basis for a preemptive war.
-Robert
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yep, that is basically why I've supported any direct action vs Saddam since he agreed to the cease-fire terms. I believe we should have only given him one "opps" because he was supposed to show us all his stuff instead of play hide and seek games like he did. The inspectors weren't supposed to be there to "find" things - they were there to be shown EVERYTHING. Saddam never complied with the terms he agreed to - he never came close. He should have been dealt with a long time ago.
CkG
Bush had spent the first many months hiding from his falling numbers on vacation doubtlessly because they knew Washington was under threat. The war opened a channel to God so he could get the Word. If these events haddn't happened and the war in Iraq, Bush would probably not have finished his stolen term. The war was vital for Bush and the neocon party.
No in that we should of not done it in the way it was done. What we should of done is what we did in Afghanistan and what was working in the Kurdish areas. In other words creating a no-fly zone in which we shoot down planes and choppers as well as taking out heavy armor, artillery, and other heavy equipment.
Then we should of armed the Shiites and Kurds and used Special Op's to help train them as well as using our satellites to provide them intelligence on Saddam's units and their positions. Also we could of started consulting with the leaders in the Iraqi resistance to form a goverment instead of flying over half-arse ex-Saddam hacks to control things and not having any real plan to deal with a post Saddam Iraq.
We could of also of gotten the U.N. involved in a more meaningful way as well. This way those doing the bulk of the fighting in Iraq would of been Iraqis instead of U.S. soldiers and thus their would not be a feeling of resentment since they earned their freedom and it was not handed to them. There is no question that Saddam needed to be gotten rid of but the way we did it we just ended up replacing his regime with ours.
Sure things would of taken longer to get going but I feel that the conculsion would of been much better since IRaqis would be the ones fighting and dying for THEIR freedom and thus they would work harder to make sure things got solved in the way that they wanted it to get solved. Our problem in Iraq is that Bush and company want to have control over every aspect of a post war Iraq and that does not help us in any way.
Then we should of armed the Shiites and Kurds and used Special Op's to help train them as well as using our satellites to provide them intelligence on Saddam's units and their positions. Also we could of started consulting with the leaders in the Iraqi resistance to form a goverment instead of flying over half-arse ex-Saddam hacks to control things and not having any real plan to deal with a post Saddam Iraq.
We could of also of gotten the U.N. involved in a more meaningful way as well. This way those doing the bulk of the fighting in Iraq would of been Iraqis instead of U.S. soldiers and thus their would not be a feeling of resentment since they earned their freedom and it was not handed to them. There is no question that Saddam needed to be gotten rid of but the way we did it we just ended up replacing his regime with ours.
Sure things would of taken longer to get going but I feel that the conculsion would of been much better since IRaqis would be the ones fighting and dying for THEIR freedom and thus they would work harder to make sure things got solved in the way that they wanted it to get solved. Our problem in Iraq is that Bush and company want to have control over every aspect of a post war Iraq and that does not help us in any way.
Not in the way it was done.
1) The war on terror was just barely beginning and, even then, Bush waited way too long to begin in earnest in Afghanistan. 5 months passed between the first attack on the Taliban before a sizable force was placed in Afghanistan. That gave plenty of time for key Al Qaeda members and leaders to escape to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries. Sure, the terrain is rough in places but we have troops that are trained for anything. And, by the time a size just shy of a division was placed in Afghanistan, the intelligence special forces were yanked out and placed into Iraq.
2) Saddam Hussein was contained and was not an immediate threat. Our military presence in the Middle East to help keep him contained was, though, an integral source to Al Qaeda's attacks against us and our interests. Our foreign policy failed in that we (starting with Bush, Sr., continuing with Clinton, and ending with Bush, Jr.) did not force the hand of other Arab countries to do their part in rooting out terrorists and dealing with Saddam themselves. Bush, Jr. went the opposite track of his father and tossed diplomacy aside and rode into Iraq like a bull in a china shop. Sure, Saddam's reign of terror is now over but the Iraqi citizens aren't much better off than they were before. Saddam averaged, over his reign, 12,500 dead per year. That's about how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war started and civil war is a real possibility. Saddam kept the rebellious factions at bay with his oppression and Bush and his administration of ideologues never considered the after-effects. His father, and his administration, knew what would happen and they held off doing such in 1991.
Ideologues don't like to think in detail and don't like to hear opposing viewpoints. That's why this administration has failed so greatly on so many fronts (diplomacy, budgets, education, environment, etc.)
1) The war on terror was just barely beginning and, even then, Bush waited way too long to begin in earnest in Afghanistan. 5 months passed between the first attack on the Taliban before a sizable force was placed in Afghanistan. That gave plenty of time for key Al Qaeda members and leaders to escape to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries. Sure, the terrain is rough in places but we have troops that are trained for anything. And, by the time a size just shy of a division was placed in Afghanistan, the intelligence special forces were yanked out and placed into Iraq.
2) Saddam Hussein was contained and was not an immediate threat. Our military presence in the Middle East to help keep him contained was, though, an integral source to Al Qaeda's attacks against us and our interests. Our foreign policy failed in that we (starting with Bush, Sr., continuing with Clinton, and ending with Bush, Jr.) did not force the hand of other Arab countries to do their part in rooting out terrorists and dealing with Saddam themselves. Bush, Jr. went the opposite track of his father and tossed diplomacy aside and rode into Iraq like a bull in a china shop. Sure, Saddam's reign of terror is now over but the Iraqi citizens aren't much better off than they were before. Saddam averaged, over his reign, 12,500 dead per year. That's about how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war started and civil war is a real possibility. Saddam kept the rebellious factions at bay with his oppression and Bush and his administration of ideologues never considered the after-effects. His father, and his administration, knew what would happen and they held off doing such in 1991.
Ideologues don't like to think in detail and don't like to hear opposing viewpoints. That's why this administration has failed so greatly on so many fronts (diplomacy, budgets, education, environment, etc.)
Absolutely not.
No sustainable or supportable justification for it--from the weasly "UN resolution" BS (look at how many Nations fail this litmus test), to the Liberation of oppressed Iraqi BS.
All arguments in favor of attacking a country pre-emptively without provocation are morally and ethically wrong. I'll give you an example: Iraq invading Kuwait.
Not only wrong--criminaly wrong!
There is no coherent argument for one country to wage aggression towards another country who is not aggressive towards them.
<<This does not even take into account all the lies and trumped-up non-evidence>> Even if Iraq were a bona-fide war presence with WsMD capabilities--there would still be no justification to strike first, not without a declaration of war, or an aggression of war stature--
Try to defend this position: If you see a person you "think" may punch you (no evidence) just a hunch--you have a right to go ahead and punch them first.
The US is in the wrong here, and we all know it. Thousands of innocent people have died needlessly.
No sustainable or supportable justification for it--from the weasly "UN resolution" BS (look at how many Nations fail this litmus test), to the Liberation of oppressed Iraqi BS.
All arguments in favor of attacking a country pre-emptively without provocation are morally and ethically wrong. I'll give you an example: Iraq invading Kuwait.
Not only wrong--criminaly wrong!
There is no coherent argument for one country to wage aggression towards another country who is not aggressive towards them.
<<This does not even take into account all the lies and trumped-up non-evidence>> Even if Iraq were a bona-fide war presence with WsMD capabilities--there would still be no justification to strike first, not without a declaration of war, or an aggression of war stature--
Try to defend this position: If you see a person you "think" may punch you (no evidence) just a hunch--you have a right to go ahead and punch them first.
The US is in the wrong here, and we all know it. Thousands of innocent people have died needlessly.
No, attacking Iraq was a dangerous diversion of resources from the war we NEED to fight on terror. Attacking Iraq made the US an even bigger target (if that was possible) for muslim hatred then it was before. Bush Sr said it best:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly . . . turn[] the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
"To occupy Iraq would instantly . . . turn[] the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
No,
It just simply wasn't necessary to invade iraq. In terms of priority its very low IMHO. Even after all is done we still dont fully control the oil fields, which would of been the best reward for our work. Lets face it most americans dont care if the middle east goes democracy aslong as it doesnt pose a real threat to our security, which iraq clearly didnt. Unlike pakistan or Iran. Its easily shown how easy most arabs are able to be controlled by their religious beliefs.
For me N.Korea, is the biggest threat and the issue with them should of been resolved first. Also war isn't possible with them because of their protecter (China). So no lifes would of been at stake.
It just simply wasn't necessary to invade iraq. In terms of priority its very low IMHO. Even after all is done we still dont fully control the oil fields, which would of been the best reward for our work. Lets face it most americans dont care if the middle east goes democracy aslong as it doesnt pose a real threat to our security, which iraq clearly didnt. Unlike pakistan or Iran. Its easily shown how easy most arabs are able to be controlled by their religious beliefs.
For me N.Korea, is the biggest threat and the issue with them should of been resolved first. Also war isn't possible with them because of their protecter (China). So no lifes would of been at stake.
When faced with a possible nuclear or bioligical threat from Iraq as claimed by this administration, preemptive action was a palitable but distasteful conclusion. When we found that to be a lie, and the open arms of a freed Iraqi society folded, and us scorned for occupation of a sovereign land, I no longer can support this failure of our countrymen and the Iraqi people. We could easily taken Saddam in a surgical strike, but that is against the law. That is why Bush had to declare war. He invented the reasons to garner support from the US public and a few other countries afraid to go against the US (remember Bush's war cry"your either with us or agin us" ).
That given, to my dieing breath, I will always support our military wherever they are called to duty, even if its a madman that calls them.
Seems thats where we are at now. Anyone see an exit strategy ...........................anywhere?:shocked:
That given, to my dieing breath, I will always support our military wherever they are called to duty, even if its a madman that calls them.
Seems thats where we are at now. Anyone see an exit strategy ...........................anywhere?:shocked:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter