Do You Believe The United States Was Just To Go To War With Iraq?

[Stealth Hunter]

No. Although Saddam was a horrible person, and his sons were no better, he had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, he kept them out with all his might. He hated terrorists. Then when he was removed, the terrorists began to flood into the country since border protection was at a cease point towards the "end" of operations by the American military. This new weak government they have has shown incompetence, might I add, time and time again at dealing with the terrorist problem (not to mention, securing their country's border). Plus, American military operations there seem to have disturbed the Middle-East's vibe and have displayed negative effects on the civilians living in Iraq (mainly being the high levels of collateral damage that were taking place at one point, including the large number of civilian and enforcer casualties).

[Skybird]

No. All that was given as justification for the war, were no reasons that held their ground, but changing excuses afterwards.

Also, there have been voiced "reasons" that decribed official war goals, and reasons that lied under the surface and were the real reasons. But none of these given mission objectives were achieved, not the idealistic ones and not the selfish ones. That'S what files as a lost war, no matter how the engagement plays out in the forseeable future: objective achieved or not - this is what defines success or failure. Instead, the strategical situation of the Us has been massively damaged, and beyond recover. It is not feared anymore, the war is not autonomously supported by the american taxpayer, the war has casued follow-up costs to the american society that are calculated in the range between 3 and 5 trillion dollars, which is a very high mortgage for the young generation having to live with it and for foreign creditors, and most important, any historian will agree with me: the nimbus of being undefeatable, by which whole empires lasted for centuries ebentually, is gone.Vietnam was only a loss of face, without further damage to the strategical position. But Iraq is a massive loss of strategic positon and power. Iraq is multiple times worse as Vietnam. One swallow does not make a summer. One battle won does not win you a war.

"You, Hannibal, know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it." (Maharbal)

[Sailor Steve]

No. I thought from the start that we should have focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden.

[Skybird]

No. I thought from the start that we should have focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden.
My talking. :yep: But Afghanistan was a war of need, Iraq was a long preplanned war of choice, so...

[Jimbuna]

After what happened in Kuwait, I don't think the US had much choice. There must have been enormous pressure applied for years after by the Saudis for a visible sign of American committment towards their protection.

The Gulf is such an important part of the world to the west because of it's oil, I always thought it would be Iran who was attacked/invaded.

What is dubious is the reasons/trigger behind the invasion. I never believed they had WMD......and who would/could have foreseen the massive cost being paid now, so long after Saddams downfall.

[GlobalExplorer]

No. Though Saddam was a dictator the US did not justify their action and rushed the decision. In the end it is not even clear what the aim was.

Secondly they payed no heed to the complexities of the region - they still dream of a democratic Iraq when it looks rather as if the post state will disintegrate without Saddam, very much like Yugoslavia did after Tito.

To the defense of the US it must be said that most similar post-WWI constructs eventually disintegrated (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, even the USSR), so it is maybe unavoidable.

Even Belgium (which is post-Napoleonic artificial construct) is on the brink of falling apart.

[Skybird]

...and who would/could have foreseen the massive cost being paid now, so long after Saddams downfall.

Not only was it forseen by many, many people to whom the WH did not payed any attention, I would even say its unavoidable complications in the aftermath of the field battle summer 2003 were so obvious that it all had to be forseen. By rejecting these considerations, the WH did only illustrate it'S incompetence and lacking understanding of the situation it messed around with, which may come as part of the tradition that the Us foreign policy regarding the ME since a very long time is a mess and tumbles around blindly without any realistic orientation. Even here in the forum the situation you got in Iraq was pretty much and en detail predicted by people - by me, but not only by me but others as well. What they got in return was aggressive attack, lies and offendings of being accused of even desiring by heart and mind that there would be american failure. but seeing evil developing is not the same like wishing it to develope. It is more about realistic perception of a given situation. and the WH was megalomaniac, it was insane, and it was drunk of it'S own self-declared power that it shamelessly exaggerated.

It could have been known in advance. But the WH did not wish to know it in advance, and so ignored all the warnings, for it really wanted this war. As it turned out, the WH was totaly wrong, and the "doomsday prophets", the "sky-is-falling-callers", the "socialists" and "anti-americans", the "unpatriotic lefties", the "whiners" and the "hypercautious cowards" were right with their projections.

what we will see at some point after the presidential elections end of this year is that all those people I just mentioned above will be declared to be responsible for having turned Iraq into a failure. That will mean the climax of this absurd grotesquerie.

Well, everybody knows what happened to Kassandra warning of the doom coming. She was murdered by those she warned. What was coming next was the Greek armada - end of story.

[Von Tonner]

After what happened in Kuwait, I don't think the US had much choice. There must have been enormous pressure applied for years after by the Saudis for a visible sign of American committment towards their protection.

I have to agree. We all know now that there were no WMD. But, and this is the point, Saddam was a major threat to the stability in the region. He had attacked every single neighbour he had including ethnic groups WITHIN his own country. Therefore, after Kuwait one could not simply leave things be.

Maybe the first big mistake was not to take out Saddam in the first Gulf War with the least amount of collateral damage to the country and its citizens. Not having achieved that but merely pushing him back accross the border it was always going to be a festering wound needing lancing at some later stage and at a much larger cost.

[Skybird]

I have to agree. We all know now that there were no WMD. But, and this is the point, Saddam was a major threat to the stability in the region. He had attacked every single neighbour he had including ethnic groups WITHIN his own country. Therefore, after Kuwait one could not simply leave things be.

At the time of 2003, Saddam was a beast with all his teeth already having been pulled. He was no thread beyond the borders of Iraq.

Maybe the first big mistake was not to take out Saddam in the first Gulf War with the least amount of collateral damage to the country and its citizens. Not having achieved that but merely pushing him back accross the border it was always going to be a festering wound needing lancing at some later stage and at a much larger cost.
On this I agree, 1991 was a job not finished - but intentionally not finished. But again, between 1991 and 2003 Saddam had been limited to be a teethles beast, or better: an irritation. He could roar, but he could not bite. Considering the massive cost in money, in lives being claimed, instability spread, growing of Iranian influence, weakening of amweria'S strategic psotion, removing him was not worth it - not at these ridiculously high costs. And why removing this dicatator, if america happily made business and supported so many other tryranies to it's intersts in South america, Africa and Asia in the years since WWII? Becasue "he may have been a bloddy bastard, but his doom was that he no longer was our bloody bastard?"

So far there has been no compensation and no payoff for America for Iraq 2003-2005. Even the desired control of the oil flow has only partially been acchieved, and does not compare to the orioginal intentions. Not to mention that the war helped to decrease global security and has motivated the breeding of more terrorists than would be there today without the Iraq war.

The truthfulness of leaders in war is judged by wether they were successful or not, and by their reasons they gave in advance for going to war. Bush scores a perfect, huge, shining Zero by these standards.

and I think America cannot start thinking about a healing process for itself, and about learning from this desaster and leaving it behind, as long as it does not accept ultimate and total responsibility for the mess that was created without need, and parts of its people still waste time with wishing to see something positive from it and trying to avoid this grim respnsibility to accept. The events in Somalia 1993 have formed the future military doctri´ne of the army, by having become more cuatuous and hesitent, quick in quick out patterns, the way the Afghanistan war was fought in 2001 was a direct rrsult from trying to avoid losses being created in the way they took place in Somalia. Vietnam also led to a total reconstruction of the army, and major parts of the doctrines. And iraq will be a massive burden for the future face of the army as well. It already is to be seen: the army starts to run low on captains which form a very vtial rank in the hierarchy, after having been sent on the same mission several times, many have started to turn their back on the army in frustration, and now use their leadership skills in private business, for their own benefit. This will have an impact in some years, when these ranks would have been expected to have risen to high command ranks - these ranks then will have to be filled with other personell, obviously. The costs of the war, the costs of wear and tear, also massively affect the military budget plannings for the next years to come. Other projects had to step back, or were even cancelled. It is difficult to overestimate the longterm consequences of Iraq for the armed forces. It also will affect how future wars are being fought, which is a mixed bag: it could lead to needed aggressiveness not being an option,l but it also could lead to a US leadership being less gung-ho to launch another stupid war. but I think the negative consequences outweighs the positive.

[DeepIron]

No. Though Saddam was a dictator the US did not justify their action and rushed the decision. In the end it is not even clear what the aim was.

Secondly they payed no heed to the complexities of the region - they still dream of a democratic Iraq when it looks rather as if the post state will disintegrate without Saddam, very much like Yugoslavia did after Tito.
Thats pretty much how I feel about it. For his crimes against the Kurds, Hussein and Company deserved to be brought to accountability.

As for the rest... As has been pointed out, there has been scant, if any, supportive evidence. After the failure of "shock and awe", the goals became confused and without Saddam holding the various factions in check, civil war has been the result, IMO.

[August]

Yes. Saddam was a boil that needed lancing and while perhaps we should just have done that and walked away I can't fault our country for at least trying to clean up the resulting mess.

[Platapus]

I have to agree. We all know now that there were no WMD. But, and this is the point, Saddam was a major threat to the stability in the region. He had attacked every single neighbour he had including ethnic groups WITHIN his own country. Therefore, after Kuwait one could not simply leave things be.


But was Saddam a threat in the 21st century?

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

In July 2001 , Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997 and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

Seems like a lot of people were saying that Iraq did no pose a significant military threat.

Yet somehow the administration claims that "EVERYONE told them that Saddam was a threat"

Everyone? Or just neocom warmongers?

[Brag]

All it takes is to read the Neocon manifesto to see why when they took over the U.S. government, they immediately started preparing for war. Those people are imperialist crazies who thing the destiny of the U.S. is to rule the world. They see the U.S. as the new Roman Empire. Nutz! :roll:

[STEED]

Iraq had WMD's which there neighbors probably have now, but don't get me wrong I don't believe they were what we call the big stuff more like limited and low grade weapons/technology. I don't believe going into Iraq was just far from it, a fairly stable country has now been made unstable and no one seems to know what to really do. Western view point on a Eastern country was bound to end in trouble which as we all know this has now happen.

Now America and us in the UK are stuck with a money draining problem to our country's which our politicians can not or will not try and do something about it. Iraq war II was a blunder in the dark, let's go in and...........

Well we're think about the it afterwords. Todays politicians can not be trusted in my opinion.

So I vote no.

PS: I felt something was wrong about it all back in 2003 seems to like I was right.

[mrbeast]

All it takes is to read the Neocon manifesto to see why when they took over the U.S. government, they immediately started preparing for war. Those people are imperialist crazies who thing the destiny of the U.S. is to rule the world. They see the U.S. as the new Roman Empire. Nutz! :roll:

This is very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I picked neutral. Something had to be done about Hussein, but I dont think war was the best option.

[Sea Demon]

Yes. Saddam had not lived up to his end of the cease fire agreement. And there were provisions for military action if Saddam's Iraq did not live up to those resolutions. In this case, as Saddam failed to live up to those agreements, the action was legal and correct. And should have probably been taken sooner, perhaps by the previous administration.

[Iceman]

Ahh the ole 20/20 hindsight

Shouldve's Couldve's and Wouldve's...He's dead..this is 2008...deal with the present.

History is written by conquers.

and only the dead have seen the end of war.

[Tchocky]

This is 2008...deal with the present.
This is the present.
The question is completely relevant.

[Iceman]

This is 2008...deal with the present.
This is the present.
The question is completely relevant.

The question of whether is was right or wrong to go into Iraq...?

I remember a defiant Iraq of the so called UN resolutions.

Just when exactly is the rest of the world supposed to sit back and let an A-hole like that dictate terms to the greater part of the world.The UN has shown itself a toothless pussy cat and as such it is every country's right.."Right" to then exercise it's own best judgement...no matter the consequences that come from it....

Do nothing...that strategy is lame.

Again looking back things always look clearer but one must put himself back in that time along with the mindset and circumstances ...this reminds me of the thread of whether or not dropping the bombs on Japan was right.

You people love dirty stinky laundry.

[DeepIron]

I remember a defiant Iraq of the so called UN resolutions.

Hey, I know a defiant Iran that's doing the same thing today and they are accused of having the ability to create more terrible weapons than Iraq supposedly had.

"Saddle up boys, we're having lunch in Tehran" wouldn't solve anything. It didn't work in Baghdad either...

[Tchocky]

The question of whether is was right or wrong to go into Iraq...? Of course. With an ongoing war costing hundrerds of thousands of lives, it is correct to question if it was right to begin* it. A resolution to that question opens up the issue of what to do next.

*Naturally, there will be difference over the precise time the war began, and who started it. I am taking it to mean the initiation of large-scale military operations, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Just when exactly is the rest of the world supposed to sit back and let an A-hole like that dictate terms to the greater part of the world. This type of behaviour is not unique to Iraq. Remember that "with us or against us" stuff? That falls 100% under what you've just described. Decide for yourself whether its acceptable behaviour.

The UN has shown itself a toothless pussy cat and as such it is every country's right.."Right" to then exercise it's own best judgement...no matter the consequences that come from it.... Of course it's a country's right to act without regard to consequence, that's what sovereignty is all about. It is a country's responsibility to act carefully, which means regard for consequence. It is also in a country's interest to consider what consequences will come from its actions.
Do nothing...that strategy is lame. There were and are more than two options.

[Steel_Tomb]

Yes....

I agree, the official reasoning for the war was incorrect, but that does not hide the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and it was right to remove him from power. I significant reason for the post-war troubles was the populations greed for power and the ridiculous way they follow these extremist clerics like flies around s**t! Yes, the USA made some major cock ups in their post-war plans but it does not hide the fact that a lot of the problems endured today are due to the population trying to "do their own thing". Perhaps they need a dictator to keep them in check? I don't know, but I think the world is a better place without a dictator like that.

"The only thing necessary for the survival of evil is for good men to do nothing". I'm sure you've all heard it before, but don't think I'm calling Bush and Blair good people, I can't stand the idiots, but its the fact that no one could really give a s**t about what other people in the world go through as long as they can live in their ignorant bliss!:nope: . Shame on them! I do believe however that some of Saddam's weapons went to Syria and/or Iran... they've interfered and meddled with Iraq's political landscape enough since the Bathist (sp?) regime was toppled to warrant the thought!

And no one think about saying "you should go there yourself, you would change your mind" kind of talk. My dads been to Iraq three times along with two other mates of mine, so I know what its like out there. I don't mean to be rude, but I've had it before and it makes my blood boil...

[DeepIron]

I can't disagree more, who are we to decide who's worth the power in a foreign country?
Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. The following is just my opinion...

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was). The problem was, Americans didn't care about the Kurds! It wasn't on the "national radar" with 9/11 so recently in the past. It wasn't until the Bush Administration came up with WMDs and al-Qaeda links implicating Iraq with 9/11 that Americans got "nervous".

Other than the Kurdish issue, how Sadadm ran his country was none of our "concern". He wasn't at war with any of our allies at the time and wasn't threatening to go to war. The BS about "humanitarian issues" is just that, BS! If the Bush Administration was so concerned about "humanitarian issues" there are a dozen other countries that would have qualified for invasion. Why Iraq?

How would Americans feel if the Chinese came over with a "shock and awe" strategy and ran Dubb-Ya to ground because they felt his War in Iraq was totally unjust and thought he should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

I think Americans wouldn't like it any better than the Iraqi's do with our occupation and the shambles we've help create there by bungling and mis-handling the war.

[Steel_Tomb]

I can't disagree more, who are we to decide who's worth the power in a foreign country?
Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).

How would Americans feel if the Chinese came over with a "shock and awe" strategy and ran Dubb-Ya to ground because they felt his War in Iraq was totally unjust and thought he should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

I think Americans wouldn't like it any better than the Iraqi's do with our occupation and the shambles we've help create there by bungling and mis-handling the war.

Killed by Iraqi's... I don't see any genocide being committed by the US, its an Iraqi vs Iraqi situation.

Your right about people not marching into North Korea to stop the wrong doing there... but thats the way the world works. In an ideal world the people with the power to do something would go an make things for the better. Send in forces to crush the chinese supplied genocide, march into North Korea to stop the systematic killing of thousands in concentration camps, KIDS are getting catarax FFS over here thats an illness of the elderly. The famine in NK wiped out 10% of its population while its leadership enjoys everything it would want, Kim Jong Il was the biggest customer for Conag (sp?) in the world at one point, yet he can't get simple food stuffs to his people. This is just a few examples of the important things the world is ignoring because it doesn't suit their political agenda's. To quote a certain person: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". Yes he was using it as backing for his political moves in the cold war... but the moral behind it remains the same. The world is ignoring the major issues and things that need doing because it would be hard, hard on their poll figures... it would seem that opinion polls are more important than thousands of human lives... :damn:

[Sea Demon]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).



Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

[Steel_Tomb]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).



Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

But they could turn most if not all of the USA to dust if they wanted, but not by conventional means.

[DeepIron]

Killed by Iraqi's... I don't see any genocide being committed by the US, its an Iraqi vs Iraqi situation. Maybe someone says. "True enough but it was the US that created the situation in the first place!" and so forth...
This is just a few examples of the important things the world is ignoring because it doesn't suit their political agenda's.Bingo! And I couldn't agree with you more. IMO, Iraq was on "someone's" personal political agenda and when the "opportunity" arose, he seized it and the rest is being written as history...

A Chinese vs. American War would be devastating for the entire planet and I sincerly hope it never comes to that... I think we'd see it all, NBC out the wazzoo... And nobody but the cockroaches would win...:huh:

[Jimbuna]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).



Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

But they could turn most if not all of the USA to dust if they wanted, but not by conventional means.

Doesn't even bare thinking about......Armageddon http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/7118/nofemaleqj9xl4.gif

[Steel_Tomb]

Killed by Iraqi's... I don't see any genocide being committed by the US, its an Iraqi vs Iraqi situation. Maybe someone says. "True enough but it was the US that created the situation in the first place!" and so forth...
This is just a few examples of the important things the world is ignoring because it doesn't suit their political agenda's.Bingo! And I couldn't agree with you more. IMO, Iraq was on "someone's" personal political agenda and when the "opportunity" arose, he seized it and the rest is being written as history...

A Chinese vs. American War would be devastating for the entire planet and I sincerly hope it never comes to that... I think we'd see it all, NBC out the wazzoo... And nobody but the cockroaches would win...:huh:

Of course Iraq was on Bush's personal agenda. He wanted to finish the job his old man start but chickened out of! I don't agree with the way that the US put over the war in Iraq, but I'm glad they did it for other reasons, hence why I voted yes. I hope they stay there for a while, make sure that the situation somewhat stabilizes so it doesn't fall to pieces as soon as we jump ship. I just wish the rest of the world would get their act together, and for the UN to actually start teething instead of pussy footing around appeasing everyone who doesn't do their will because its a useless organization like the League of Nations at the moment. The world would be a better place (although perhaps after a time of unrest) after we rid ourselves of dictators etc where and whenever possible.

[mrbeast]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).



Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

Well theres over a billion population in China and as the Soviets used to say 'quantity has a quality all of its own'! :huh:

Would the US be able to project enough force across the Pacific to China? Unless maybe Russia decided to settle some old scores and allowed a US a presence in Siberia? :hmm:

Could be nasty could well go nuclear.

[DeepIron]

Of course Iraq was on Bush's personal agenda. He wanted to finish the job his old man start but chickened out of!I don't think Bush Sr. chickened out really. I think he saw Saddam keeping the lid on things in Iraq and knew what kind of war would ensue if he pursued him. "Better the devil you know" I think he said. Besides, Desert Shield was over so fast the politicians didn't get a chance to screw things up.
I think the other factor was that we were supposed to push Saddam back out of Kuwait, and we did that successfully. It might have been much more difficult to prosecute the war further AFTER the initial goal had been met.

hope they stay there for a while, make sure that the situation somewhat stabilizes so it doesn't fall to pieces as soon as we jump ship.I'm pretty sure we'll be there for awhile regardless... We're committed.

[mrbeast]

Of course Iraq was on Bush's personal agenda. He wanted to finish the job his old man start but chickened out of! I don't agree with the way that the US put over the war in Iraq, but I'm glad they did it for other reasons, hence why I voted yes. I hope they stay there for a while, make sure that the situation somewhat stabilizes so it doesn't fall to pieces as soon as we jump ship. I just wish the rest of the world would get their act together, and for the UN to actually start teething instead of pussy footing around appeasing everyone who doesn't do their will because its a useless organization like the League of Nations at the moment. The world would be a better place (although perhaps after a time of unrest) after we rid ourselves of dictators etc where and whenever possible.

The reason the UN has no 'teeth' is that it relies the strength and help of the nations that form it. On its own the UN is just a talking shop. Unless its backed by powerful nations, principaly the US, if the US chooses to ignore the UN then there is little it can do.

[DeepIron]

Would the US be able to project enough force across the Pacific to China?Nah, I doubt that right now we can even project enough force into Mexico and stop unarmed illegal immigrants... ;)

[mrbeast]

DeepIron there would actually have been a precident for going beyond the initial UN mandate of expelling Saddam from Kuwait. During the Korean War after UN forces had driven North Korean forces out of South Korea they continued over the 38th Parallel and attempted to remove the Communist regime from power. This policy was known as 'Roll Back'.

However, it proved problematic and after initial success it triggered Chinese intervention.

I don't think it was cowardice that stopped Bush's hand in Iraq but a realisation of what may well happen if US troops attemped to invade and occupy Iraq. Ultimately Bush chose stabilty and containment over removing Saddam and wisely so IMO. But his later abandonment of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings is more controversial.

[Platapus]

Also, while it is trendy to badmouth the UN, please realize that its very structure is designed so that a few (5) countries can stop any actions by the UN.

It is comical to hear people bitch that the UN has not teeth and why can't the UN force countries to change, but what happens when the UN rules against the United States? We are the first ones to whine about sovereignty when the UN rules against us.

But when other countries claim sovereignty, it is "different". Double standards :nope:

In order to fix the UNSC the first step is to get rid of the blatantly undemocratic single veto vote rule. Equality has never been a part of the UNSC.

No wonder the other countries ignore the UNSC. It is just the stooge of the big five.

[Steel_Tomb]

Theres another example of when we should have kept pushing on but "couldn't be arsed" to finish the job. More tension has remained from halting a rolling ball than actually finishing the job. Its like starting a book, but only reading half way. Cyprus again, we could and should have thrown the turks out. I mean if Germany invaded France tomorrow I doubt they would let them get halfway to paris before saying "bugger this, you can have that chunk of our country" :damn: :damn: :damn:. Of course Cyprus is such a small place it doesn't matter what happens there :nope:...

The UNSC is a useless piece of red tape. X and Y can't do this because Z veto'd it. Its just a constant rambling debate which can and never will reach a unaminous conclusion because of the countries in it. For instance China would automatically veto any action against north korea... Russia will veto any action against Iran because they won't be able to sell them arms... see the situation. The UN is a waste of space until its reorganized and given teeth to put the "big five" into their places.

[Sea Demon]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was).



Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

But they could turn most if not all of the USA to dust if they wanted, but not by conventional means.

Nope, they don't have the necessary numbers of ICBM's to do it. And the ones they do have in operational service are vulnerable. The USA does have over 840 warheads available in the Pacific alone on top of SLBM's. This doesn't count any heavy bomber aircraft or land-based systems. Nor does it count tactical nukes, re-established capabilities, or East Coast SSBN's. Despite the fact that the Chinese got more capability during the Clinton Administration to help the accuracy of their missiles, I still do not believe they would be adequate enough to harm more than a handful of cities. Not to mention the US's limited yet growing ABM capabilities. China's true power is way overhyped. They don't have enough nuke subs, no intercontinental bombers, no nuclear triad deterrance capabilites, small to non-existent net-centric warfare systems in place, little to no early warning capabilities, small and very vulnerable sea-lift capabilities, little airlift capabilities, crappy and vulnerable bases on their East coast, and no real abilities to protect their sea lanes from US naval forces. That's just for starters. Let's not mention the fact that they need trade with the West to assure their own economic stability. Not only can we deploy across the Pacific to take on China, we're already in the WestPac operating today. Not to mention we have bases in the Indian Ocean, ME, and land bases in the Western Pacific from where we could take on China. Not to mention that China would have to attack 5 different countries to target our forces. Chiina would have to set itself as the enemy of all these nations to go to war against us geopolitically. I don't think alot of people understand just how truly limited China is in her options. Even though her power grew with help from the Clinton Democrats, we have also increased our own capabilities to ward against those offsets. And continue to do so. China would never lob a few nukes at us, when we could turn around with thousands of warheads within 30 minutes. And with ABM, they wouldn't know how succesful any of theirs would be. That throws a monkey wrench in their whole game plan. They have no such defense against a Trident II-D5. ;)

[DeepIron]

DeepIron there would actually have been a precident for going beyond the initial UN mandate of expelling Saddam from Kuwait.

I don't think it was cowardice that stopped Bush's hand in Iraq but a realisation of what may well happen if US troops attemped to invade and occupy Iraq. Ultimately Bush chose stabilty and containment over removing Saddam and wisely so IMO. But his later abandonment of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings is more controversial.
I absolutely agree with you on both points MB. No cowardice at all. I think the elder Bush saw more of the potential consequences and made a "difficult" and unpopular decision. Schwartzkopf wanted to keep going but was denied that course of action. What sucked was that the US had "promoted" the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and then backed out of supporting Iraqis who would have perhaps tried...

[Steel_Tomb]

I think we are forgetting the massed numbers of Chinese built aircraft, like the new J-10 coupled with their anti-stip missiles i.e sunburn would have a pretty devastating effect on US forces in a conventional war, unless the AEGIS anti-air system wipes the floor of the Chinese airforce they are a very potent threat within their own sphere of influecen. I do however agree with you on the over hyped threat posed to the mainland United States, its not as great as the Bush administration claims. I'd be crapping myself if I were in Taiwan though, all that force bearing down on you must be quite intimidating.

[mrbeast]

Theres another example of when we should have kept pushing on but "couldn't be arsed" to finish the job. More tension has remained from halting a rolling ball than actually finishing the job. Its like starting a book, but only reading half way. Cyprus again, we could and should have thrown the turks out. I mean if Germany invaded France tomorrow I doubt they would let them get halfway to paris before saying "bugger this, you can have that chunk of our country" :damn: :damn: :damn:. Of course Cyprus is such a small place it doesn't matter what happens there :nope:...

The UNSC is a useless piece of red tape. X and Y can't do this because Z veto'd it. Its just a constant rambling debate which can and never will reach a unaminous conclusion because of the countries in it. For instance China would automatically veto any action against north korea... Russia will veto any action against Iran because they won't be able to sell them arms... see the situation. The UN is a waste of space until its reorganized and given teeth to put the "big five" into their places.

Think you are misundrerstanding what the UN's purpose is and its not putting the world to rights. Its purpose is to prevent another world war which it has done. Agreed its not ideal but the whole point of the veto is to prevent the UN being manopolised by any single country or power block.

And BTW thats a hell of a lot of wars you're advocating there Steel_Tomb. :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

I think we are forgetting the massed numbers of Chinese built aircraft, like the new J-10 coupled with their anti-stip missiles i.e sunburn would have a pretty devastating effect on US forces in a conventional war, unless the AEGIS anti-air system wipes the floor of the Chinese airforce they are a very potent threat within their own sphere of influecen. I do however agree with you on the over hyped threat posed to the mainland United States, its not as great as the Bush administration claims. I'd be crapping myself if I were in Taiwan though, all that force bearing down on you must be quite intimidating.

They have a small number of around 100 J-10's. And that's early gen 4 in capability. And right now, they have no inter-continental heavy bombers at all. And Sovremenny and other surface ships cannot hide so easily from things like Hawkeye radar, or E-3. Has anybody even considered the option of mining China inside the first island chain before hostilities even break out? Don't you think that has been considered? ;) Fighting China would be much different than fighting in Iraq against insurgents. I believe we would be much more brutal in application, and would have to be less worried about civilian casualties. A war like that would be unlike anything you have ever seen, and would probably be over very quickly. And no, China doesn't have the capabilities to overcome if we totally let it all hang out if you get my drift.

[Steel_Tomb]

Theres another example of when we should have kept pushing on but "couldn't be arsed" to finish the job. More tension has remained from halting a rolling ball than actually finishing the job. Its like starting a book, but only reading half way. Cyprus again, we could and should have thrown the turks out. I mean if Germany invaded France tomorrow I doubt they would let them get halfway to paris before saying "bugger this, you can have that chunk of our country" :damn: :damn: :damn:. Of course Cyprus is such a small place it doesn't matter what happens there :nope:...

The UNSC is a useless piece of red tape. X and Y can't do this because Z veto'd it. Its just a constant rambling debate which can and never will reach a unaminous conclusion because of the countries in it. For instance China would automatically veto any action against north korea... Russia will veto any action against Iran because they won't be able to sell them arms... see the situation. The UN is a waste of space until its reorganized and given teeth to put the "big five" into their places.

Think you are misundrerstanding what the UN's purpose is and its not putting the world to rights. Its purpose is to prevent another world war which it has done. Agreed its not ideal but the whole point of the veto is to prevent the UN being manopolised by any single country or power block.

And BTW thats a hell of a lot of wars you're advocating there Steel_Tomb. :hmm:

Wars or diplomating crisis's that wouldn't be nessecary if the UN had finished the job properly the first time. I'm not a warmounger, I don't like war... but its the fact that the world has been left to get so messed up by sitting on issues instead of sorting them out that gets me angry.

[Ducimus]

Im not answering this poll, but i will state my feelings.

I tend to take the Grunts eye view of things. Knowing what i do about NBC warfare from training in the service - if the intellgience reports were correct - if Saddam had the stuff and intended to use it and/or sell it to people who would use it against us ; i dont see what choice we had. We coudlnt afford NOT to act.

However the intelligence was faulty. So not only did we f**k up, but we also destabalized the region. This is THE debacle of the 21st century, bar none. The only thing i wonder, is if the intelligence is genuinly mistaken, or if someone, somewhere, knew there was not much to go on, so they embellished the intelligence reports to fabricate a pretense when there wasn't one. In short, I wonder if i was lied to or not.

[August]

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"

You really are a piece of work DeepIron.

[MadMike]

Saddam Hussein did have an active nuclear weapons program, the documents (including warhead design information) were posted on the Fort Leavenworth Foreign Military Studies Office/Joint Reserve Intelligence Center website (I was able to review the material which has since been removed). :hmm:

Oh yeah, don't forget those "degraded" chemical munitions, and "pesticides" found in military ammo dumps.

Say, what was the name of that terrorist Saddam liquidated in Baghdad? C'mon Subsim historians...

Some fabulous quotes regarding WMD's-

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yours, Mike
Former WMD Maintainer

[Zayphod]

No, bad decision. BAD decision. Sit! Staaaaay!

Seriously, the Blair Memo indicated that Bush has a damned powerful desire to finish what the Elder Bush started, and indicated that he'd start something, "even if he had to paint a US plane as a UN aircraft and shoot it down to make it LOOK like 'they' started it.

Afghanestan(sp?), yeah, fully justified, but they should have encircled the country first, rather than sweep the bad guys off to the Pakistani border.

Bush lied about the reason for getting into this war. I believe that's reason for impeachment right there. You lie to keep your wife from smacking you for staying out late. You don't lie about stuff that gets thousands of people killed.

BTW, part of the blame MUST go to Saddam himself. He played poker with a crazy guy who actually called his bluff.

"Yeah, I MIGHT have nukes here, somewhere. I just kicked out a buncha guys who were inspecting for them, but if you invade, you just might find out how many WMD's I have in my back pocket. Maybe I have a pile of them. Maybe I don't."

Don't ever play poker with a crazy guy just looking for an excuse to upset the table and start blastin' away. If Saddam had watched a few more John Wayne movies, he'd have learned himself a lesson there.

[Jimbuna]

"Yeah, I MIGHT have nukes here, somewhere. I just kicked out a buncha guys who were inspecting for them, but if you invade, you just might find out how many WMD's I have in my back pocket. Maybe I have a pile of them. Maybe I don't."

Don't ever play poker with a crazy guy just looking for an excuse to upset the table and start blastin' away. If Saddam had watched a few more John Wayne movies, he'd have learned himself a lesson there.

I just love the way you put this http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Steel_Tomb]

The answer to all diplomatic crisis's, John Wayne lol :rotfl:.

[PeriscopeDepth]

No, bad decision. BAD decision. Sit! Staaaaay!

Seriously, the Blair Memo indicated that Bush has a damned powerful desire to finish what the Elder Bush started, and indicated that he'd start something, "even if he had to paint a US plane as a UN aircraft and shoot it down to make it LOOK like 'they' started it.

Afghanestan(sp?), yeah, fully justified, but they should have encircled the country first, rather than sweep the bad guys off to the Pakistani border.

Bush lied about the reason for getting into this war. I believe that's reason for impeachment right there. You lie to keep your wife from smacking you for staying out late. You don't lie about stuff that gets thousands of people killed.

BTW, part of the blame MUST go to Saddam himself. He played poker with a crazy guy who actually called his bluff.

"Yeah, I MIGHT have nukes here, somewhere. I just kicked out a buncha guys who were inspecting for them, but if you invade, you just might find out how many WMD's I have in my back pocket. Maybe I have a pile of them. Maybe I don't."

Don't ever play poker with a crazy guy just looking for an excuse to upset the table and start blastin' away. If Saddam had watched a few more John Wayne movies, he'd have learned himself a lesson there.

Not crazy. He just found himself a good enough excuse and a perfect environment to go do what he wanted (and genuinely believed in, I think) - spread democracy proactively as a way to combat terrorism.

PD

[Jimbuna]

The answer to all diplomatic crisis's, John Wayne lol :rotfl:.

....and look at the number of folk who watched his movies ;)

[Konovalov]

No. I thought from the start that we should have focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden.

:yep: :yep: Pretty much sums up what my thoughts were before the war started. Wrong war, a war of choice, and even worse it was at the wrong time. Hence I boted no on the poll like the other two thirds of voters who have voted no. Doesn't matter now though because we are where we are.