Was the war on Iraq right?

[Foeni]

Some time ago I started a thread whether the coalition should still have troops in Iraq. Almost everyone made a note about how wrong/right that war is, so why not have a thread for that purpose. Whas it right to attack Iraq? Personally I think yes. The reasons may not have been put very well, but I think that when Saddam the didn't coorporate with the International Nuclear dudes (sorry, I don't know the English name for that institution) as the resolution (I think it's number 1442, not sure though) demanded, we had to put some weight behind our threats. How is anyone ever going to be able to respect any resolution again? Plus we all know that Saddam have tried to develop nuclear arms earlier (a defected scientist has said that Iraq would have had them in 1993 if it wasn't for the Gulf War), and what would have stopped him from using them? He has committed crimes against humanity before.

Now, a lot of Europeans find that Bush's arguments for going to war was poor, but I don't know how the other world leaders presented the idea to their nation. Let's try and make this a proper discussion as the other Iraq thread was.

[acliff]

Great entertainment!

[DragonRat]

Why didn't we invade North Korea then? They've been ignoring nuclear pacts for quite some time now. Perhaps it has something to do with Iraqi oil reserves vs. N. Korea's lack thereof.

(And you know what, oil prices are still skyrocketing. Three bucks a gallon... when's that oil coming over here anyway?)

[Liam]

We wouldnt mind some here, either.

To be fair, I think the North Korea thing has more to do with trying not to piss the Chinese and the Russians off too much.

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by Liam

We wouldnt mind some here, either.

To be fair, I think the North Korea thing has more to do with trying not to piss the Chinese and the Russians off too much.

And invading Iraq's only got a bunch of nuthead suicide bombers hating Western countries even more.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

And invading Iraq's only got a bunch of nuthead suicide bombers hating Western countries even more.

They hated us enough to begin with. Anyway, what're you bitching about? Australia isn't "Western" it's further East than the Middle-East But seriously, don't tell me you believe that liberal bullshit? 9/11 occured WELL before this invasion of Iraq (and before people mention the first...for the record...UN-sanctioned, in order to liberate a Muslim country from invasion by another. No justification for an Islamist war against the "west"), and several other bombings occured well before. The Embassy bombings? USS Cole? The earlier WTC carbomb?

Terrorists like terror. War doesn't breed more of them at all, if anything it's actually lessened them. It shows a resistance and a desire NOT to be afraid. Plus there are reports showing support for Bin Laden in the Middle East has DECREASED since the war in Iraq. Reports done by WESTERN liberal newspapers who all have an anti-war stance and yet even they couldn't disagree with the findings.

Nuff said really.

Edit: I think voting "No" on this poll should be a bannable offence

[hasselbrad]

The justification for war was WMDs. We knew he had them. The same bunch of senators who were the loudest critics of Bush were the same bunch (John Kerry included) that urged Clinton to go after Saddam in 1998. For the same WMD. That he didn't have a few years later. Hmmmm.
Oh, and in case you've missed it (strangely, much of it has gone unreported) we have found a fair amount of material buried in various locations. Frighteningly, however, much of it probably scurried across the border into Syria while France, Germany and Russia were preventing us from taking action. Sweetheart oil deals and illegal sales of weapons will cause some countries to take some pretty drastic actions...like the Russians (allegedly) helping said scurrying to occur.

[Ranman]

Where are these wmd buried?
I'm sure If they found one weapon, Fox news would have reported it.
Fox News is on every night saying how well things are going over there.
Oliver North says things are much better Than reporters are saying.
If just one weapon was found it would have been on every front page.
So I say where? where? Where? Where? Where?

[Jasmine]

I'm saying no.

In my Current Issues class, we talked about how the history of it all doesn't even add up. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden aren't even friends, so the US's claim that Iraq was assisting in terrorism and had WMDs is like... totally bogus.

It's such a sad situation :[ We invaded because Bush is a greedy asshole, and now thousands of lives are being lost. When will it end?

[Hazzle]

Ever heard the phrase your enemy's enemy is your friend? They don't have to be bossom buddies, they have a common enemy, and this is war. In a war, friendship doesn't mean squat, you help out anyone who is an enemy of your enemy.

I'm not so sure about WMDs being found, but he clearly had them previously, because years before Bush was even president, people were insisting he did. Hell even the UN did. All of a sudden, Bush wins the Presidency controversially and people change their mind, simply because it's Bush.

I put it to you...if you have weapons worth billions of dollars, and the US Army is on your doorstep along with some chums, would you sit on them? Before you say "Why didn't he use them?" there's a simple reason. He used Scud missiles initially, then there was a bit of a backlash against the UN because according to the report he submitted to them, he didn't have scuds anymore. Liar liar pants on fire. Using just one WMD would've brought every other major superpower into the war...hardly a smart move.

Saddam's best weapon against the invasion was home (ie American, British, etc) opposition to it. This would go if he used them. Could you imagine the US media still opposing the war if he'd used one? Exactly.

So you can't use them...so what? Here's the thought...sell them?! If he managed to ship billions of dollars worth of gold bullion out of Iraq (and he did as they caught a couple of trucks moving gold over the border and these were not the only trucks of similar size and design going the same route at that timeframe) would it really be that difficult to sneak a few vials of a biological weapon out? That's an even smaller mass to get past pretty lax security.

This "Bush is greedy" line is odd...in what sense? PLEASE don't say oil because then I'll know you're stupid because economists have conceded that after Iraq is rebuilt, it will still take 5 years of US investment to actually make the oil fields profitable. Hardly a smart move considering Bush will be out of the White House by then.

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

They hated us enough to begin with. Anyway, what're you bitching about? Australia isn't "Western" it's further East than the Middle-East But seriously, don't tell me you believe that liberal bullshit? 9/11 occured WELL before this invasion of Iraq (and before people mention the first...for the record...etc etc

Note, I said EVEN MORE. I know there was already resentment and chaos, but the attacks have been even more often since. Don't deny that. Oh, and Bush isn't out of the House. Lucky him.

[Jasmine]

But 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein! He had no connection with Al-Queda whatsoever! 9/11 was just an excuse for Bush to get 50% of Americans to buy into his bullshit "Iraqi Freedom" scheme. There was a poll conducted, and some 80% of people who supported president bush's invasion of iraq thought that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

Bush wants oil & revenge. He will LIE to the American people and the UN to get what he wants. And he's willing to do that at the price of American lives. That disgusts me.

[Rob The BLack Douglas]

The reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD's in violation of the treaty. The White House also told the Senate that some were capable of hitting the east coast of the US.

Now, the UN inspectors continued to say that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's were already disposed of based on the serial numbers from the US, British, and French companies that sold the stuff to Iraq. What little he had left was either buried, or some of it most likely did get smuggled out. But he had very little according to the US military when they finished there search for WMD's.

Also the White House claimed to have proof that Al-Qaida was working with Saddam. There has been no evidence of this.

Also the White House fostered the perception that Iraq was partly responsible/involved with 9/11. Thanks to faux news for pushing this piece of White House propaganda.

Add in the fact that Shrub was itching to go in and finish what his daddy started means that all this administration needed was the flimsiest of exscuses to go into a country that they have always wanted to invade.

There has been accurate reports by people stating that the White House has been obsessed with Iraq from the first day they took office.

To many of the US's resources are being sucked up by Iraq instead of being used to go after Osama who should be our number 1 priority.

Rob

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

Note, I said EVEN MORE. I know there was already resentment and chaos, but the attacks have been even more often since. Don't deny that. Oh, and Bush isn't out of the House. Lucky him.

I don't deny that there've been more attacks. I DO deny that there's more hatred towards the west as, in the rest of my post, I highlighted the fact that recent surveys have shown a declining support for Bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Jasmine

But 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein! He had no connection with Al-Queda whatsoever! 9/11 was just an excuse for Bush to get 50% of Americans to buy into his bullshit "Iraqi Freedom" scheme. There was a poll conducted, and some 80% of people who supported president bush's invasion of iraq thought that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

Noone EVER said 9/11 had anything to do with Saddam Hussein. If idiot Americans believed that, then more fool them, but that was a naive interpretation of what was put forward. The argument was that 9/11 showed that WAITING for the worst to happen before dealing with it was a bad way to go about things. Bin Laden tried to bring down the towers way back in 93. He was then linked with the Embassy bombings and the sinking of the USS Cole. IF, as he'd been pushed to (ironically by Kerry, amongst others), Clinton had dealt with these threats by launching a proper offensive against Bin Laden, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

This logic was extended to Hussein thus; rather than waiting for him to use WMDs or worse yet, sell them to someone else who could be using them all around the world, let's see if he'll comply with his UN obligations, and if he doesn't, we'll make him comply. The proof was in the pudding...part of his obligation to the UN was to tell them exactly what long-range weapons he had. No Scud missiles were mentioned on the report his government submitted to the UN. However Scuds were SEEN used against the invading forces and captured by WESTERN media which, as we know, has been consistently AGAINST the war.

So the fact is, Saddam was breaking his UN obligations. Now if you WANT to argue against an invasion based on this, argue against it, and there are some very valid arguments (eg why won't the US be sterner against Israel which is also breaking UN resolutions? Double standards?) but please, I beg of you, don't keep trotting out the same old naive "Where are the WMDs?" (because the ACTUAL reason for the war was WMDs as well as long range missiles. BOTH were forbidden by the UN, not just the former. The latter he definitely DID have) or "It's about oil"

Bush wants oil & revenge. He will LIE to the American people and the UN to get what he wants. And he's willing to do that at the price of American lives. That disgusts me.

FFS. IT IS NOT ABOUT OIL. Have you not seen Oil prices rocket up? The irony is for everyone bitching about this being about oil the same people bitch about "gas" prices going up in the US...err...where's the logic in that? Let me repeat, it will take five years of US investment in a STABLE Iraq before it begins producing enough oil to counter the IMMENSE cost of the war. Do you people not realise how many billions a war costs? For Iraq to produce enough cheap oil to negate the cost of the war and then make the whole endeavour (if the war was a business proposal, as you suggest) profitable will take 5 years...and that clock hasn't even really begun running yet. Bush won't even be in office...

Now revenge...THAT you may have a point about...Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld were both in Bush senior's cabinet too...

(wait, why am I giving you arguments against the war? Oh yes, because I'm trying to give you valid ones instead of invalid ones )

The reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD's in violation of the treaty. The White House also told the Senate that some were capable of hitting the east coast of the US.

Now, the UN inspectors continued to say that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's were already disposed of based on the serial numbers from the US, British, and French companies that sold the stuff to Iraq. What little he had left was either buried, or some of it most likely did get smuggled out. But he had very little according to the US military when they finished there search for WMD's.

Incidentally that first argument has never been refuted. He WAS found in possession of long range missiles capable of that.

And 95% is not 100%. Hell even if he had just a few solitary weapons, that doesn't diminish their danger. The US military only ever admitted that what they found were scraps, they never admitted that they found nothing. Equipment was found, I believe, but no actual weapons...but I ask...who has equipment if he's not been making the weapons? Whether he still had them or not, he knows who he sold them to, and the only way for us to find out would be to interrogate him. Which required his capture...

Also the White House claimed to have proof that Al-Qaida was working with Saddam. There has been no evidence of this.

Also the White House fostered the perception that Iraq was partly responsible/involved with 9/11. Thanks to faux news for pushing this piece of White House propaganda.

No, the White House claimed that they had sources and evidence that SUGGESTED that Al Qaida had been working with Saddam. It's the media that spun that into "proof". Everyone knows that the term "evidence" doesn't equate to proof, as both sides in a trial present "evidence" and only one side's "evidence" will ever amount to "proof".There has been no evidence refuting this either. The fact Saddam and Bin Laden aren't friends doesn't mean anything either as the suggestion was NOT that Bin Laden and Saddam had directly worked together, but people in Bin Laden's rather large network had worked with Saddam.

Sorry again, but no, the White House fostered the perception that Iraq might have helped with the planning for the attacks on 9/11. Don't forget, the pilots had initially trained to fly crop dusters and the theory is that initially they planned to spray something over New York and Washington DC but the plans were changed. If the former was the initial idea...given Saddam's preoccupation with biological warfare...whose idea do you think it might've been? I mean Bin Laden has NEVER been linked with chemical or biological weapons...he prefers things that go boom.

What I love is people complete disbelief of White House propoganda (which is a good thing to see) and yet their complete acceptance of the liberal media's propoganda (which is a bad thing to see). The truth lies somewhere in between...don't swallow everything the government tells you, but sure as hell don't believe the media because they're even worse! The media has ALWAYS been a propoganda machine, either pro or against a government, and to believe their spiel is silly.

Now Rob does make some valid points. The argument about wanting to finish what his daddy couldn't, and it being their agenda from day 1...all valid. In addition Bin Laden should be our number 1 priority and the irony is that our apparent ally, Pakistan, who helped in the invasion of Afghanistan, is allegedly harbouring him now.

[Ranman]

I'm starting to like you Rob, well atleast your way of thinking.

Haz, you saying idiot americans is an insult to idiots
and where about to upgrade to morons.
There about to start teaching creation in schools instead
of evolution, so instead of learning we evolved from apes,
our youth are gonna learn about the guy who lived in a
whales belly for 200 years and the earth is only 5000 years old.

Our President nominated a supreme court judge this week.
Instead of putting a qualified judge up for the job
he chose his personal lawyer with no experience as a judge


The rest of the world should get on tv and point and laugh at the USA

[Hazzle]

I'm against the teaching of creationism too. It'd be fine if it was just part of religions education but as a scientific principle? Bollocks.

[Rob The BLack Douglas]

Actually the White House has repeatedly said that they had proof that Al Qaida was working with Iraq. The White House try'sd to tie everything into 9/11 because it distracts people fro mwhat they are doing to our country. Looting the treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars, forcing a right wing christian theocratic government on the people, the destruction of all privacy rights, and making the super rich ven richer at the exspence of the middle and working class.

And Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Rethug party here in the US. They spew the party line dribble as "News". The media did not sex up the bit about Al-Qaida and Iraq, the White House did and the news only reportrd what the White House said. Don't believe me, check out White House press conferance transcripts.

Saddam was bluffing the entire time. What was found was so old it could of never worked. He did such a good job of bluffing that everyone believed him. He actually had very little in the way of WMD's. Now he was trying to fool the UN into lifting sanctions so he could resume his weapons programs, but the last batch of inspectors were a little to efficient and he wasn't able to do anything on a large scale.

When the US went into Iraq, we had no plan to control the country, the administration actually thought the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and everything would be perfect.

This administration ignores the advice of numerous advisors and only listens to it's yes men. The White House refuses to take any responsibility for it's actions.


Thanks for the compliment Ranman, truly appreciated. Where I live people actually think god tells the president what to do

Rob

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Rob The BLack Douglas

And Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Rethug party here in the US. They spew the party line dribble as "News". The media did not sex up the bit about Al-Qaida and Iraq, the White House did and the news only reportrd what the White House said. Don't believe me, check out White House press conferance transcripts.

As I said, they said they had evidence, not proof. The terms are not interchangeable, even if the media do use them as such. Fox News are as bad as anyone but the rest of the media are hardly blameless for their left-win nonsense either.

Thanks for the compliment Ranman, truly appreciated. Where I live people actually think god tells the president what to do

That's bad. Although it's almost as bad believing the media too.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

What are 10 years if you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars?
If you’re talking about the biggest oil supplies in a world were the need for oil raises everyday?
Who gets all the building contracts to rebuild Iraq? American building construction companies. ect.

Lol, yes, but where's the incentive for BUSH?! In 10 years he won't be president, he won't get to claim the glory, hell, some Democrat might be and get to claim it. There's no logic to that. Especially as the French only remained OUT of the war because they had agreements with Iraqi oil makers and didn't want to lose out.

Helping the people of Iraq was not the only reason the usa invaded. If that would have been the only reason than they would never invaded on their own.

Noone ever said it was that. I love the way people who oppose the war flip-flop and say "It wasn't to help the people of Iraq so Bush is a liar" "It wasn't because of WMDs so Bush is a liar". Which of those reasons did he give? You'll FIND that the actual REASON for war was the latter...the former was an added benefit that the White House spun out because they knew it'd gain them more support. Spin doctoring at its best. And they didn't go on their own thank you very much!

And for the Weapons of mass destruction. I am sure if you would drop years and years bombs on Belgium than you would find the restants of chemical factories and could claim "hey they were making weapons of mass destruction."

Lol. I'm not even dignifying that one with a response...dropping bombs wouldn't create chemical labs, would it? Plus Belgium also stayed out of the war for reasons of oil greed like France...

[Foeni]

There's no doubt the oil had a role to play in invading Iraq. But it's a minor reason. I don't think I could name one single oil-using country who isn't interested in a stabile oil market. But making it the one and only reason, which a lot have, is wrong.

Yes, USA lead the war against Iraq. They are the superior force in this coalition. But other peace-loving, not so greedy nations have joined as well. Britain, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Spain etc. The biggest problem is that Bush had a good plan to win the war but none to win the peace. The most unstabile areas in Iraq is controlled by US forces. That doesn't neccesarily mean that US forces are bad, it also has something to do with which area we're talking about. Let's have that in mind.
I will repeat what I said when I created this thread. Saddam didn't obey (sorry about the choice of words, don't really know what word to use - you know what I mean) the UN after having been threatened with war. If we just had let him shit on our threats everyone we threat will do the same, because we won't react to it anyhow.

Finally, no respect for those countries who declare themselves against the war only to be caught in having great deals with Iraq.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Foeni

There's no doubt the oil had a role to play in invading Iraq. But it's a minor reason. I don't think I could name one single oil-using country who isn't interested in a stabile oil market. But making it the one and only reason, which a lot have, is wrong.

Exactly. However the oil argument cuts both ways, some countries had more to gain from Iraq's oil trade being restricted (such as Russia), and in fact the anti-war argument had a lot more to do with oil as financially they would reap bigger benefits than the coalition will. You think the billions that the US will make out of these contracts is big? Russia, France and Belgium together stand to lose TRILLIONS. Russia's oil trade has rocketted since the first Gulf War and the restrictions on Iraq. They alone stand to lose several hundred billion. Yes, hundreds of billions.

The biggest problem is that Bush had a good plan to win the war but none to win the peace. The most unstabile areas in Iraq is controlled by US forces. That doesn't neccesarily mean that US forces are bad, it also has something to do with which area we're talking about. Let's have that in mind.
I will repeat what I said when I created this thread. Saddam didn't obey (sorry about the choice of words, don't really know what word to use - you know what I mean) the UN after having been threatened with war. If we just had let him shit on our threats everyone we threat will do the same, because we won't react to it anyhow.

Exactly. Going to war was not a mistake, but going to war without a proper exit strategy and long-term planning was.

Finally, no respect for those countries who declare themselves against the war only to be caught in having great deals with Iraq.

Such as France and err...Belgium