The Iraq Invasion. Leaving aside the WMD issue, was it really worth it?

[Space_Ed]

Ya know, I wish more people, to include me now and again, would do this.

Nice to see we find common ground on the odd occasion.

Cheers.

DR

lol

 

[Ziggurat]

The unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom destroyed the last scrap of UN credibility on maintaining global peace and stability.

A few questions come to mind, in no particular order.
1) The UN still had a scrap of credibility?
2) If both the US and the UK invaded Iraq, is "unilateral" really the appropriate word?
3) Are you claiming that only the US and the UK were involved in the invasion?

From the perspective of a small nation, no it was not worth it.

4) Which small nation are you refering to?

 

[Space_Ed]

Here, let me see if I can get to the heart of the OP: even if there had been WMDs, the invasion and occupation was still wrong, poorly planned, badly executed, and a complete debacle from (almost) start to... I was going to say "finish", but we may never see that.

The invasion was very well executed. The occupation was what went wrong. I cant remember where I read this but apparently US soldiers were given a one hour lesson on Iraqis and Iraqi history before being sent to blow them up. Very poor. Babylonia, the heart of Alexander's Empire has been tarnished.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I don't think it was worth it. It might have been worth it for the Bush family and other oil tycoons.

Evidence that the Bush family profited financially?

The whole thing is a disgrace. Iran has US troops on its west and eastern borders... and its surprising they want to develop nuclear weapons?

Iran's nuclear activities predate the Iraq invasion. IIRC, they predate Bush's presidency. And according to the recent NIE, they halted the weapons part of the program in 2003. Hmm... what happened in 2003? I know it's emotionally satisfying to blame as many problems as you can on a decision you don't agree with, but there's really no reason to think we would be in any better position regarding possible Iranian nuclear weapons had we not invaded Iraq, and a few reasons to think it would be worse (including, for example, Libya ratting out the AQ Khan nuclear smuggling network after Saddam got captured, and Khaddafi's own words stating that was a motivating factor).

 

[Space_Ed]

Evidence that the Bush family profited financially?



Iran's nuclear activities predate the Iraq invasion. IIRC, they predate Bush's presidency. And according to the recent NIE, they halted the weapons part of the program in 2003. Hmm... what happened in 2003? I know it's emotionally satisfying to blame as many problems as you can on a decision you don't agree with, but there's really no reason to think we would be in any better position regarding possible Iranian nuclear weapons had we not invaded Iraq, and a few reasons to think it would be worse (including, for example, Libya ratting out the AQ Khan nuclear smuggling network after Saddam got captured, and Khaddafi's own words stating that was a motivating factor).

I've been told lol.

 

[Space_Ed]

I got the impression that the Bush family had interests in middle eastern oil after watching Farenheit 9/11.

 

[stilicho]

I was about to post this in the thread below (It is now!), as I often wonder if those split on the entire issue of Iraq, split on issues of WMD and Niger Uranium and such stuff, miss the question any person from 4-102 can ask. That is, with the absolutely monumental loss of life (600,000? 700,000?) in Iraq, has it really been worth it for the human cost?

It is curious this has become the hippy position in the mess of these debates, as presumably it is one of the most fundamental questions of all. Normal Iraqi's, who have absolutely no or little interest in politics, whether it be Bush or Hussain, Bin Laden or Zawahiri, have been killed in a similar style to crushing ants with giant chess pieces.

A common myth has been that American caused most of these deaths, which I do not accept, but that again leaves open the question of why normal Iraqi's should suffer at the hands of Zarqawi, Algerians, Jordans etc. I'm sure we can be certain the Islamist war we are watching today would not have operated in Iraq under Hussain.

After so many deaths, I cannot see how any of these people can say they have the utmost respect for human dignity.

Morally, of course, one has to approach a set of questions like this as follows: Every human life is equally sacred. The problem with approaching any political question on the basis of this moral absolute leads us to the inevitable conclusion that no collective action may ever be taken. In a just world there would be no states, no armies, no reason, in fact, to do anything in an organized manner.

This "just world", of course, exists only in the imagination.

On the other hand, if we accept Aristotle's old saw about humans being political (social) animals, then there are chaotic and powerful forces at work in all arenas of life that lead both to injustice and to morally reprehensible actions. They do not "justify" these actions but they certainly explain them.

In simpler phrases: "It takes two to tango". It's tough to take the stance that all the hideous things that happen in the world are due to the actions of one side of a fight.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No

 

[New Ager]

I was about to post this in the thread below (It is now!), as I often wonder if those split on the entire issue of Iraq, split on issues of WMD and Niger Uranium and such stuff, miss the question any person from 4-102 can ask. That is, with the absolutely monumental loss of life (600,000? 700,000?) in Iraq, has it really been worth it for the human cost?

We went in because Iraq violated 14 UN resolutions and the UN would do nothing. They had violated our ceasefire with them from the Gulf War.

We got rid of Hussein and a murderous regime.

We gave a country a chance at freedom.

There is no price to high for freedom.

It is curious this has become the hippy position in the mess of these debates, as presumably it is one of the most fundamental questions of all. Normal Iraqi's, who have absolutely no or little interest in politics, whether it be Bush or Hussain, Bin Laden or Zawahiri, have been killed in a similar style to crushing ants with giant chess pieces.

Under Hussein they were too. Better to die for a reason than none at all. And you think freedom would have come there or in any dictatorship without bloodshed?

After so many deaths, I cannot see how any of these people can say they have the utmost respect for human dignity.

With Saddam, probably true. Now with a chance at freedom, maybe a chance at dignity too.

 

[New Ager]

Was it worth it?

I feel lied to about the WMDs which was the reason why i wasnt completely against the war in the first place.

There was no lie and would you have been for it if there would have been? I'm guessing you were really against because Bush was President.

To me it depends on how much of a genocidal lunatic Hussain was. I think they could have got around the Hussain issue without invading Iraq.

Let me guess. You were going to talk him into leaving.

I feel sorry for Iraqis because most of them are just normal people and dont deserve any of the mayhem going on around them.

Did they deserve a dictatorship who killed 100's of thousands of their brethren?

Your statement is pointless.

Also if I was walking around my neighbourhood and found it blown up, my people killed and arrogant ignorant foreigners wandering around, I wouldnt be too happy myself. I think I would be very tempted to use my AK-47 against these people.

So now American soldiers who have brought freedom to Iraq are arrogant, ignorant foreigners?

Your liberalism is showing.

No. I don't think it was worth it. It might have been worth it for the Bush family and other oil tycoons.

Ah, there we go. The oil conspiracy theory. No evidence to support that.

The whole thing is a disgrace. Iran has US troops on its west and eastern borders... and its surprising they want to develop nuclear weapons?

And now defending a terrorist country developing nuclear weapons.

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. The invasion was based on a lie and was conducted for selfish reasons.

They didn't say it did and there was no lie.

 

[New Ager]

Too much emphasis is put on the latter and former people and little to none on the Iraqi people's suffering. I think its high time people from both countries stopped complaining about their politicians treatment of them and focus on the world's treatment of the Iraqi's,

It seems no one was concerned about the Iraqi's dying under Saddam, but now are so concerned about people dying for the freedom of their country. I wonder why?

 

[New Ager]

Hmm, was it worth it. Well taking the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the strengthening of terrorist nations such as Iran, the increased recruitment to terrorist organisations, the deaths in Bali, London and Madrid, the restriction on travel, the restrictions civil liberties and the demonisation of a large group of people because of their religion on one hand and on the other hand ... Well no.

Some of those things were already going on, had nothing to with the Iraq, or were not caused by it.

How come there are those who get so upset when we strike back against the bad guys?

Could it be because there is a conservative in the White House?

 

[Elizabeth I]

With all due respect to Darth Rotor's, Undesired Walrus's, and Schneibster's well-reasoned arguments, I have to step aside from my generally conservative viewpoint and say, hell, no.

 

[New Ager]

What is victory?

The opportunity for freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people.

They want the fact that violence is down to consitute some sort of victory...

Liberals used the violence as to why were losing. Why can't we use the decrease as victory? I guess when we win that's bad news to liberals.

but it doesn't allow us to leave, nor does it seem to have motivated a real, sustainabile political solution among the various Iraqi parties.

Arguing a point no one has made.

Worse still...we've sold our soul (as it were), we've found a way to justify torture and redefine it down. We've lost the trust of much of the world. We've allowed our government to make horrible choices in our name with little accountability and oversight. We've become sanguine about the distruction of a country we know little about and we've become facile in our approach to complex global problems.

The usual liberal playbook nonsense.

We've bled a lot of our national treasure. Our children will be paying for this for a long time. Considering what can happen in Pakistan and what is happening in Afghanastan (you remember Afghanastan, the country THAT WAS GIVING SHELTER TO THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US ON 9/!!?), we've put our resources to the wrong cause.

Getting rid of a dictatorship and giving a country a chance of freedom is such a waste of our time.

Maybe we could spend our time doing something worthwhile like getting rid of global warming.

..but between the failure of vision, scope, cost in personell and materials and money...it has been a huge waste and one that can and is crippling the capacity of this country to adequately defend itslef againg real, identifiable enemies and challenges.

That's actually a good description of liberalism.

 

[New Ager]

I hate to admit my agreement with DR but when I first opened this thread it had no reponses yet and I pondered for a while. I realized I could not come up with a satisfactory response to the OP so I exited without posting.

Reading DR's post I realize why I was reticent in responding. Determining worth from the Iraqi perspective for this debacle will have to wait for 5-10 years, perhaps longer.

Lurker

I don't have to wait 5 years to realize that the opportunity for freedom for an entire country is worth it.

 

[JoeEllison]

The invasion was very well executed. The occupation was what went wrong. I cant remember where I read this but apparently US soldiers were given a one hour lesson on Iraqis and Iraqi history before being sent to blow them up. Very poor. Babylonia, the heart of Alexander's Empire has been tarnished.

Yeah, and we'll stay because it is bad politically for us to leave... and what's best for the Iraqi people isn't even an afterthought.

 

[New Ager]

I hope you are not linking Bali to Iraq, seeing how the attacks were in 2002.

Plus, I hope you are not linking London or Madrid to the Iraq invasion, as I do not buy that they are connected.

Liberals will blame anything on Bush and America.

It's what they live for.

Well, other than telling everyone else how they should live.

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

When I was in the Navy, we had a few optional lectures from various visitors on topics which were of interest to the men and women in the service. One was from an officer who had studied past warfare tactics at the Army War College and had attempted to apply those lessons to the modern threat of terrorism.

They concluded that the only thing you could do when faced with a determined enough global terrorist organization, who could merge in and out of civilian populations at will, was to start a war somewhere and hope they'll show up to stop you.

It's ugly, it's not politically correct, but these people sometimes don't care for the political victory so much as the physical one.

Personally, I am more insulted by the "shock and awe" campaign which accomplished nothing, and the subsequent failure to deliver a defeat prior to announcing victory.
WMD? Well, sometimes intelligence data is just wrong. Did Bush lie? Nah, all of the things he said were also said by Clinton during the 90s and just after 9/11. Is Bush a fool? Yep.

 

[New Ager]

The unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom destroyed the last scrap of UN credibility on maintaining global peace and stability.

LOL!! The UN has no credibility.

And, as usual, it's all America's fault.

How come destroying global peace is never blamed on terrorists, you know, the real bad guys?

And how exactly do you suggest we maintain global peace?

Float some candles down a river??!!?

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

The opportunity for freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people.



Liberals used the violence as to why were losing. Why can't we use the decrease as victory? I guess when we win that's bad news to liberals.



Arguing a point no one has made.



The usual liberal playbook nonsense.



Getting rid of a dictatorship and giving a country a chance of freedom is such a waste of our time.

Maybe we could spend our time doing something worthwhile like getting rid of global warming.



That's actually a good description of liberalism.

Beware of those who boil down extremely complicated situations into simplistic statements. Flinging about emotionally charged concepts like freedom, in this context, is a bit simpler than the reality on the ground.
Getting rid of a dictator? Sure, we got rid of one. Did we bring freedom? Probably not. It is the nature of Islamists (islamist used here to denote the merged nature of their religion with their political aims) to destroy any notion of freedom from the lands they occupy. The minute we leave it's likely that the land will be dominated by various strongmen and armed groups, but Saddam was an awful guy, so who knows if it's a good thing or a bad thing?

The other question is how much will this cost? If we do a small amount of good in the world, but go bankrupt in the process, is it still good?