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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

My talking. 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]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

[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

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]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

"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

[Steel_Tomb]

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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

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

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

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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