Was the war on Iraq right?

[AureaMediocritas]

All this perfectly shows the subjectivity we are all subjected to in our
considerations. Your opinion largely depends on your character (relentlessly
pacifistic, patriotic, alternative, conservative, intelligent, dumb, especially naive etc.), your level of curiosity, the partial sources you have to base yourself upon (in any case, the author manages to affect you in one way or another: hepresents an interesting idea that makes you stick to his belief or a remark that annoys you and makes you reaffirm your initial position with even more impetus) and last but not least, your government´s relationships with the sides involved.

It is worth considering that rarely a peace of information is purely objective
(even pictures are not always).

The discord and the multiplicity of points of view might very well lead to a
productive discussion (exactly what this forum needs!) but in case of doubts,
it seems wisest to me to remain strictly neutral.

At least, you do not end burnt as a witch.

[DefyingGravity]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

At least, you do not end burnt as a witch.

SHE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by DefyingGravity

SHE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT

What a shame !! My sincere condolences.

[Ranman]

Over 2000 Dead Americans

With no end in sight

[deviljet88]

450 Australian troops to be withdrawn in May, due to Iraqi security forces finally training their butts, yay.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

not mentioning the deaths count on the Iraqi side which is a lot higher.

Most of which were caused by insurgency which is not the fault of the invasion as the religious tensions that are causing the insurgency were always there. Saddam was perpetrating bloodbaths on a daily basis, and the insurgency was happening (by the Shiites instead of the Sunnis who're doing it now), we just didn't know about it as the bloody media didn't care then.

They do now as they can use it to criticise Bush, when the truth is, the only reason so many Iraqis are dying now is because liberal idiots stopped us going to war against Saddam sooner. We should've gone to this war back in the late 90s.

Please stop spewing fiction. This is supposed to be a real-life discussion and the idea that the deathtoll of innocent Iraqis, most of whom were NOT harmed by US military but by insurgents, is the fault of this invasion is a bald-faced lie.

The deaths of the US soldiers is, however, the "fault" of this invasion but then, so by that token were the deaths of the US soldiers in Europe during WWII as America didn't have to send troops to Europe, it did so to help Europe.

America's sole threat was from Japan, how many American lives could've been saved by just attacking Japan and leaving the Europeans to worry about the Nazis? And how many more Jews would've died if that had been the American attitude then?

[AureaMediocritas]

It was indeed a clever move on the part of Georgie´s daddy Georgie Sr. to let
Saddam in power when the road to Baghdad was open. How much did he care
about those shiite massacres !

His lovely son seems to have inherited this remarkable magnanimity.
Freedom for the poor Iraqi we all love so much !

Yeah right.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

It was indeed a clever move on the part of Georgie´s daddy Georgie Sr. to let
Saddam in power when road to Baghdad was open. How much did he care
about those shiite massacres !

His magnamity seems to have stained his lovely son. Freedom for Iraq !

Yeah right.

It was indeed an error to allow Saddam to stay in power back then. I don't disagree. But the fact one mistake was made doesn't make this war any less right.

FYI, there was virtually no way to capture Saddam without using force against his own person. But US law prevented the military from using force against a President of any nation after JFK's assassination so there were complex legal issues about what Bush Snr could actually order.

The legal situation is different now as Bush Jnr passed an ammendment to the law prohibiting assassinations of Presidents. They're still illegal but non-lethal force against a foreign leader is now allowed.

[hasselbrad]

We should've gone to this war back in the late 90s.

You mean when Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry et al were pushing Clinton to do it?

[AureaMediocritas]

In my opinion , what you call a mistake is one of many proofs that the U.S
administration does not give a damn about the Iraqi people (and I honestly
do not see why they should : if they were to liberate the world from dictatorship
they would have plenty more of work to do..., especially in regions less
"interesting" , geopolitically and economically).

I am quite sorry but I do not buy their story.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

In my opinion , what you call a mistake is one of many proofs that the U.S
administration does not give a damn about the Iraqi people (and I honestly
do not see why they should : if they were to liberate the world from dictatorship
they would have plenty more of work to do..., especially in regions less
"interesting" , geopolitically and economically).

I am quite sorry but I do not buy their story.

That was never their story. That's just it, they pitched it in that they were liberating Iraq from Saddam (which they have) but noone EVER said that that was their entire motivation for doing it. It's basically just been implied from what was said because it suits the anti-war agenda.

But that's total bollocks, the reasons for the war were many, and yes, they even said that one of them was the hope that a democracy in the Middle East would have good geopolitical rammifications. Economically Iraq isn't that crucial, but a stable Middle East would be. Again, what about that is wrong again? Do we not want a stable Middle East?

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

You mean when Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry et al were pushing Clinton to do it?

Yup...

But as I said, bloody liberals wouldn't let it happen. If you want to know what would happen if Liberals ran the world...look at the riots in Paris. The French capital, home of the nation which staunchly opposed the war in Iraq, is being burnt and destroyed by Islamic riots as we speak...

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Economically Iraq isn't that crucial, but a stable Middle East would be. Again, what about that is wrong again? Do we not want a stable Middle East?

Imperialism is wrong. Using violence to impose values that the locals are not
familiar with, provoquing a brutal culture clash , lying about "weapons of
mass destruction" , not bothering to respect UN decisions , using the military to
fulfill personal ambitions or the ones of a lobby , wasting loads of people´s lives ,
all this doesn´t sound right to me.

A stable Middle East ? Good luck... If the method will stay the same , much
fun will be had.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

Imperialism is wrong. Using violence to impose values that the locals are not
familiar with, provoquing a brutal culture clash , lying about "weapons of
mass destruction" , not bothering to respect UN decisions , using the military to
fulfill personal ambitions or the ones of a lobby , wasting loads of people´s lives ,
all this doesn´t sound right to me.

A stable Middle East ? Good luck... If the method will stay the same , much
fun will be had.

Imperialism isn't wrong. Half the world wouldn't be educated if it wasn't for British imperialism. What values are we imposing? The world's first ever democracy was in Persia, where modern-day Iraq sits. The culture clash hasn't been provoked by the invasion, don't be an idiot. Do you not know about the brutality that was taking place every day under Saddam? The culture clash comes from the age-old issues between Sunnis and Shiites, nothing the west could do could have made those better or worse.

Noone lied about WMDs, it was all speculation, you can't blame governments for the fact that the media didn't understand that and spun off their own interpretation of the various dossiers.

The UN decision was basically a smokescreen for the fact France didn't want the war and neither did Russia. China always opposes the US, Germany always opposes any way, even the firts Gulf War, Russia didn't want the war for economic reasons and the French not only didn't want the war, but coerced former French colonies into voting in their favour. It was the most corrupt decision the UN has ever taken, it's not up to France to run international organisations, it's bad enough that they've used the EU as their own personal empire for long enough.

Want to see an Imperialist nation abuse its power? Look no further than France which has, unlike the British, never relinquished control on its former colonies. The French blackmailed former colonies, that makes the "decision" a mockery and null and void.

Plus the UN resolutions already passed gave ample authority to go to war. Read up on them a bit and you'll find the UN DID actually sanction this war, they just tried to back down on that by refusing to pass another resolution which would have been a bit sterner in its terms. However the war DID have UN backing under existing resolutions.

"wasting" people's lives is a point of view. Do you have proof that the region will not be better? How about we wait long enough before judging the effectiveness of this war, instead of being narrow-minded idiots and failing to see that the only way to see if this will bring stability to the region is in the LONG-TERM.

Wars are all about personal ambition, don't be so naive. Every single commander in chief decides to go to war on the basis of their own personal ambition, or lobbying, this is why Roosevelt opted to stay out of WWII (due to lobbying against it) until the US was attacked and the lobbyists switched sides. Are you saying that it was wrong for Roosevelt to go to war?

Your sarcasm just underlies the weaknesses of your points. It's the lowest form of wit. Peace can only be achieved through war, perhaps if you read a little more than just the newspapers (with their latent bias), you'd have read the many many philosophers and thinkers of far greater intelligence than you or I who have said so.

[AureaMediocritas]

So you would fully understand , in case the Queen was a dictator , a unilateral (and I persist , unilateral) invasion of Britain because it needs to be educated, (all right, if you say it is the medias´fault excusively, I will leave the WMD behind), because the UN partly consists of self-righteous countries who have different causes to prevent this invasion from happening (but did not vote against a previous invasion led by the U.S) and still it is backed by the U.N (?) , because one man is fully entitled to use his power to fulfill his ambitions since that ´s just the way it goes, there is nothing wrong with that... ? If I were British , I wouldn´t like to see my property blown up ,
the national resources exploited by unfriendly culturally and religiously
opposed invadors, the establishment of a government devoted to the invadors (with the illusion of so-called democracy, a bit as in the former communist countries of eastern Europe) etc.

I would have appreciated foreign help preparing an insurrection to get rid of the Queen, but I would not understand why the Yanks are "liberating" me.

Although I do like your powerful argumentation , it seems not to reflect the
mentality of somebody living in the 21 th century. It rather reminds me of a
19 th century approach making the difference between "good and bad" , "developped and undevelopped" , "clever and dumb" with nothing in between,
blindly justifying any kind of action suiting that point of view.

No offence , your points show that you are willing to accept the course of
history with all the violence creating peace that goes with it. I do respect that. So, would you say that a superpower is entitled to invade every
country they regard as a thread ? If so, wouldn´t you agree that there
is still a lot of work to do and that there is a slight risk that new enemies
are going to arise in consequence ? And lastly, would you agree that
the so much powerful superpower is eventually going down because of this
geopolitical approach ?

Hopefully , my stubornness is not too frustrating . I like energetic
discussions.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

because the UN partly consists of self-righteous countries who have different causes to prevent this invasion from happening (but did not vote against a previous invasion led by the U.S) and still it is backed by the U.N (?)

I think you misunderstood my point. The ENTIRE UN didn't vote on the resolution, I'm sure you're aware, it's the Security Council, which contains both permanent and temporary members. In 1991 the balance of the Security Council wasn't so Franco-centric, to begin with, and secondly the French were not opposed to that war as, unlike this one, it was not against their economic interests. That is why they backed it then.

Incidentally, yes, it is still backed by the UN because the initial resolutions gave enough backing for the war to be valid, the stronger resolution was sought for clarity and more unanimity of purpose, it was a chance for the world to join what is a just war and stand up for the UN's beliefs, but instead the French-led coalition opted to vote in favour of national, not international, interest. And yes, if the French coerced former French colonies into voting in their favour, thereby making the result an anti-war one whereas it would've have been in favour of it previously, then the decision should be deemed null and void due to corruption.

No offence , your points show that you are willing to accept the course of
history with all the violence creating peace that goes with it. I do respect that. So, would you say that a superpower is entitled to invade every
country they regard as a thread ? If so, wouldn´t you agree that there
is still a lot of work to do and that there is a slight risk that new enemies
are going to arise in consequence ? And lastly, would you agree that
the so much powerful superpower is eventually going down because of this
geopolitical approach ?

There is a lot of work to do and no, there isn't any risk that new enemies will arise in consequence. Support for Bin Laden has dropped in the Middle East after the war in Iraq. That's according to Al Jazeera, who, let's not forget, should be biased the other way. I do not believe that the US has anything to fear, let's face it, who's going to bring the US down?

Bringing the US to its knees will have no other result than a catastrophic decline in the economies of every other nation in the world, and spiral the world into the depths of depression never seen before. Never before has the world been so economically reliant on one nation, not even in 1929.

As for military might, no matter what, the US still boasts the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and a hi-tech, sophisticated and large military. Not to mention it has allies in the UK, Canada and Australia who combined make it a pretty daunting task to humble the Americans militarily.

[AureaMediocritas]

I am fine with your post except for the "corrupt decision" of a France-led
coalition that only considered "national" interests.

It is no secret that France has tried to disrupt the strong ties between America and Europe ever since the 1960s . Beeing a permanent member of the Security Council , I believe that France has a right to oppose decisions that are not in favour of its national interests ; all former Soviet and Chinese vetos can be explained in the same way. As the name of the organisation shows , the U.N is a group of nations , which includes thinking based on the concept of nation, therefore national egoism. Of course , it would be great if
every country got along together without any trouble whatsoever , yet reality seems to prove that a nation cares about itself first. This is not a
purely french phenomenon, I guess.

The concept of a "just" war you mentioned is also subjected to fragility.
Many people in Europe , but also in the U.S. and the world (who you would
probably call "damn liberals" ) have got founded reasons not to regard
such an intervention as "right" ("In wartime , the first victim is Truth"),
either because of (tendencious and still solid) documentaries , critical
investigations on the part of scolars and journalists or frankly
anti-American propaganda (always bearing at least some true facts).
In consequence, I would dare to affirm that the French even made a
decision representative of a great deal of Europeans (sissy pacifists , yes I
know).

Anyway, I hope the democratisation will succeed in Iraq, one Vietnam is
enough.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

I am fine with your post except for the "corrupt decision" of a France-led
coalition that only considered "national" interests.

I have no objection to France's voting against the resolution. I do have issues with blackmailing their former colonies to do so even if they didn't want to. Every member of the UN should be free to exercise the vote, as you said, in their OWN national interest. It's ironic that you, a champion of democracy, should hide behind a very undemocratic decision. Is it democracy to vote with a gun pointed to your head, being told who to vote for? That's the situation that took place.

The concept of a "just" war you mentioned is also subjected to fragility.
Many people in Europe , but also in the U.S. and the world (who you would
probably call "damn liberals" ) have got founded reasons not to regard
such an intervention as "right" ("In wartime , the first victim is Truth"),
either because of (tendencious and still solid) documentaries , critical
investigations on the part of scolars and journalists or frankly
anti-American propaganda (always bearing at least some true facts).
In consequence, I would dare to affirm that the French even made a
decision representative of a great deal of Europeans (sissy pacifists , yes I
know).

A just war is a necessary one. It's up to every nation to decide what's necessary for its own national security. It doesn't matter what the French believe to be necessary for their own national security, it's not up to them to claim that the war in Iraq was unnecessary when clearly the US, Britain and several other allies DID feel it was necessary for THEIR national security.

Anyway, I hope the democratisation will succeed in Iraq, one Vietnam is
enough.

I wish people would stop making that comparison. That's not a legitimate one to make, the US did not go to war based on an ideological opposition to Saddam Hussein's politics, it was not a case of not wanting to see a Sunni government (unlike Vietnam where it was opposition to Communism) but based on his danger to surrounding areas and potential international rammifications. That would make it far closer to the second world war, as Hitler is very reminiscent of another Hitler. Kuwait was very much an example of him trying what Hitler did with Czechoslovakia and as a history student, you know that had he been challenged at that point, Hitler would never have invaded Poland, and the second world war would never have happened. The truth is, a war now prevented a massive-scale world war in 5 years time.

[AureaMediocritas]

If former french colonies deem it necessary to obey french intimidations , it is
obviously a sign of political weakness and dependence. Nevertheless , if such
politicians decide to back the french attitude (again supported by a large
number of Europeans) , it is a sign that France cares about them most.
An easy solution would for instance be to contribute to the development of
stable democracies instead of letting power to mostly corrupt leaders ( in many cases, considered with little / without interest , especially in Africa [maybe this rings an economic bell ?]).

Yeah , I had a good laugh when I saw the impressive list of "allies" : all sincere and entirely devoted coutries (my personal favourite is Uzbekistan).
The U.S promisses to such countries to make them provide military support
are of course a nice appetizer but all in all, they are as corrupt as the
french intimidations.

Your objections as to the Vietnam are indeed well-founded. I guess it is
commonly used to show the possibility that a fanatized guerilla , supported
by wealthy allies not intervening directly (Saudi-Arabia, Iran maybe , perhaps
Syria) can defy a mighty invador. In this case , it seems to me that this
possibility is largely underestimated by the Coalition , especially in an instable
region such as the Middle East.
Seeing that Saddam was overwhelmed in 1991 already , the Czechoslovakia
analogy seems to be a bit exaggerated. You may claim that Hussein was
a clever one, usurping the Oil for Food program to obtain money illegally ,
sending home the inspectors to win time and so on , I still would not believe
he would have started a new war. But that is a matter of point of view.

Let me add that this thread helped to illustrate the points of both pro- and
anti-war positions, which I think has been a tremendous benefit after all.

[Pygmalion]

War is never the right answer, and the war in Iraq was the poorest excuse for Bush to get his hands on oil and win support for an election I've ever heard of.
I marched in the "No War" marches at the time, and I'd do so again.

[Foeni]

God I hate when people believe Bush went to war only for oil! What about the rest of the coalition? Do you really think us to be that stupid? We have leaders more intelligent than Bush, and they've met with him, talked to him. Don't you think they made sure the reasons for going to war was well-founded? Besides, if you look at the way the US handle the situation in Iraq, you'll see that they lose a rather large amount of soldiers, which the same US is known to try and prevent at any costs. All those cities in which terrorists hide, they could have just bombed the hell out of them. They let their soldiers go in. Why? Because they believe in what they're doing.