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

[gumboot]

A few questions come to mind, in no particular order.
1) The UN still had a scrap of credibility?

Yes.

ETA. After a significant loss of credibility in the 90's, the UN authorised use of force in a number of operations (such as Timor Leste and Afghanistan) was starting to reestablish their authority in maintain peace and security.

2) If both the US and the UK invaded Iraq, is "unilateral" really the appropriate word?

It's probably not the best word to use, but the term "unilateral" is often used in the context of military action taken against the consent of the United Nations. You are welcome to replace it with any word that you feel is suitable if it aids your understanding.

3) Are you claiming that only the US and the UK were involved in the invasion?

No, I'm claiming the USA and UK were the primary participants in the invasion. The only non US or UK forces involved in the invasion of Iraq were a few hundred special forces soldiers from Australia and Poland.

4) Which small nation are you refering to?

Mine.

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'll ignore the poor writing and respond by asking why, if "deposing an evil dictator" is such a high value, we don't invade Burma, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Russia, and probably many others? Why just Iraq?

Iraq has oil?

 

[gumboot]

LOL!! The UN has no credibility.

Not any more they don't.

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

No, it's not. I understand the US's position. Frankly I was in favour of military action in Iraq. But only under the UN flag. The UN's failure to enforce their requirements of Iraq damaged their credibility. But unauthorised military action by their most powerful member did more damage.

It was desirable that Saddam was gone, and I understand the US position on that. However as desirable as that was, it was far more desirable that the key members of the UNSC acted within the system they created for dealing with global problems.

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

Because terrorists are not capable of destroying global peace. Only nations are. Both nations that act when they should not, and nations that fail to act when they should.

And how exactly do you suggest we maintain global peace?

Float some candles down a river??!!?

I think we can maintain global peace by having the will to reinforce our collective directives with military force.

I emphasise we (the UN) here because it is not the role of you (the USA) to maintain global peace.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Well that soldier is an invader and the locals are going to want to shoot him and who gets caught in the crossfire eh?

That soldier is a local. How incompetent can you be? He's a member of the Iraqi National Guard.

-Gumboot

ETA. When you consider that the soldier is an Iraqi, now a superior soldier, better equipped and trained thanks to the coalition efforts, this photo symbolises hope to me - a modern Iraqi soldier, signing up to serve his nation despite threats of bombings, kidnapping and murder, standing guard over a young innocent Iraqi girl who, if not for his vigilance, would no doubt be murdered in due time by extremist foreign terrorists (you'll note her head is uncovered, indicating she does not follow strict Sharia).

 

[SezMe]

Iraq has oil?

Well, Russia has oil, but your point is well made. A point I partially agree with. But we'll have to wait to see what New Ager can come up with.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Well, Russia has oil, but your point is well made. A point I partially agree with. But we'll have to wait to see what New Ager can come up with.

It would be quite difficult to invade Russia

 

[Space_Ed]

But the rifle isn't pointing at the face! Look again.

Give it a break please. That isn't the point.

 

[Space_Ed]

But the soldier's gun is.

"This is my rifle
This is my gun
The first is for fighting
The other for fun"

DR

lol thats a pretty dark joke there dark roth.

 

[Space_Ed]

Now, if paradise were to come to Iraq and Eden recreated on the banks of the Tigris for future generations of Iraqis, maybe that would change the calculation. Maybe a few hundred thousand would be worth that. But only the most naive Democratic Idealists believed that, and most of them stopped believing that once reality stopped meeting their impractical dreams a few short months into the war.

I like this. Yes for any one who does not already know, the geographical location of the Garden Of Eden is supposed to be between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The desert that Adam and Eve were expelled into is the Iraqi desert outside the fertile land around the rivers.

 

[Space_Ed]

It's just they have a very skewed way of looking at America's "best interest" - skewed enough to work in the opposite way intended once put to the test.

I don't think they're so callous for wanting war for war's sake, or to pad their coffers. If friends ended up with nice contracts, if senators got their weapons system component manufacturing in their districts - then that's just a byproduct of the endeavour to do their best to "save America".

They're true believers. And that makes them more scary than if they were the Dr. Evil caricatures (a la South Park on 9/11 truth - lol) we hear about from troofers in my opinion.

At least then they'd be a bit more fathomable..

Like it.

 

[Acleron]

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.

The decision to invade Iraq had already been taken in October 2002 and was quite obvious to the outside world.

One of the London bombers recorded a video and specifically mentioned that this was the first in a series of attacks until all troops are pulled from Iraq.

The extant Spanish government at the time of the Madrid bombings certainly thought there was connection.

Agreed that all three of those actions also had other motives in addition. Those motivations may even have been prime, but they are still connected to Iraq.

 

[Acleron]

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?

No, we had a socialist in power, just equally misguided and misguiding.

 

[Space_Ed]

Interestingly, another thing that isn't there is an evil dictator killing his own people.

No thats true! But there's what were his own people killing his own people... and Americans... and British... and Japanese... and many other nationalities and groups of people ranging from the young and innocent to journalists to military personel.... Is all this death worth the killing by Saddam?

 

[Space_Ed]

With liberals, that's all it is. They don't care about Iraq or its people, only bashing America and the President.

My idea of a liberal is someone who does care about people. I would call someone only interested in 'bashing America and the President' a xenophobe and as a consequence- definately not a liberal.

 

[Space_Ed]

With liberals, that's all it is. They don't care about Iraq or its people, only bashing America and the President.


Yeah, because liberals are never political, have nothing but love for our country and our President.

Wait a minute... am I being thick or is this a massive contradiction?

 

[Space_Ed]

Or how about the other countries in this world doing something other than moaning and complaining when we actually do fight back.

The invasion of Iraq was an entirely unprovoked attack. Perhaps with good reason.. although I seriously doubt it.

 

[Space_Ed]

That soldier is a local. How incompetent can you be? He's a member of the Iraqi National Guard.

-Gumboot

ETA. When you consider that the soldier is an Iraqi, now a superior soldier, better equipped and trained thanks to the coalition efforts, this photo symbolises hope to me - a modern Iraqi soldier, signing up to serve his nation despite threats of bombings, kidnapping and murder, standing guard over a young innocent Iraqi girl who, if not for his vigilance, would no doubt be murdered in due time by extremist foreign terrorists (you'll note her head is uncovered, indicating she does not follow strict Sharia).

Ahh yeah thats a good way of looking at it. Regarless it would still be better if he didn't have to be there at all, if there was no war or conflict and Iraq was beautiful like it could be. I wasn't attempting to say anything specific by posting those images- just to see Iraq as it is.

 

[Space_Ed]

Yeah you've worked me out I'm afraid lol 1 2 3 58968 oh i cant remember lol

Dont tell anyone else about my incompetence ok!

 

[JoeEllison]

The invasion of Iraq was an entirely unprovoked attack. Perhaps with good reason.. although I seriously doubt it.

There's something stupid about the notion that we attacked Iraq to "fight back"... it is the thinking of the cowards who have been wetting themselves every night since 9-11 and just want to hurt anyone, in order to alleviate their fear. Invading Iraq was not "fighting back", not from any reality-based perspective.

To be fair, they don't want to do the hurting themselves... nope, they want to stay home and drive their SUVs with "Support The Troops" magnets, and let other people die in order to make them feel less afraid.

 

[headscratcher4]

If our invasion of Iraq was "fighting back"....it is a little like punching a bystander because he looks menacing (but easy to deck) instead of the guy who threw the punch at you and blended back into the crowd.