Was there any justification for the war in Iraq?

[TomCollins]

Was the cease fire invalid? Whether or not it justified the current actions, there is no doubt that he was violating the terms of it.

If Japan began to break its terms of cease fire after the war, it certainly would justify actions.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Justification: He invaded Kuwait, and did not abide by the seize fire agreement. Thats all the "justification" you need right there.

[/ QUOTE ]


......Huh?

Did you mean to respond to my post?

I didn't ask for justification for the invasion.

I did ask for a definition of the 'War on Terrorism' though.

By the way, while you're at it, what is a 'seize fire' agreement?

[elscorcho768]

Some great responses from both sides so thanks for a good discussion.

First off, my belief that this forum is predominantly liberal is based on topics and discussions focused on issues such as the Iraq War, Bush, Israel etc. When topics are posted regarding subjects such as these, most comments are from a liberal point of view. But I do find it funny that many ahve taken offense at my assertion. Is it a bad thing to say that this forum is mostly liberal, at least when it comes to foreign policy? I feel both sides do not want to be in the majority and actually like to feel like they are fighting a herculian battle against the dominant but morally bankrupt other side. Thats just my opinion and its not the point of my post so I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Let me reiterate my point of the original post so as not to confuse some. It is my belief that the war in Iraq was justified and a noble idea despite the reasons given by the admin. that proved false. Why? I'll refer to my a, b, c.

a) Removing Saddam was a good thing. It is my belief that after 9/11, people and governments that posed a serious threat to America should be dealt with. This could be accompished in a variety of ways. With Hussein, numerous ways have been tried to deal with him, with little effect. He was a thorn in our side for over a decade and it was a good idea to remove him. That's what I mean when I said that removing Saddam was a good thing.

I think my second point, spreading democracy in the middle east is in our best interest, is the strongest justification for war with Iraq. It is my belief that the best chance we have for defeating Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is through the spread of democracy in the middle east. Overthrowing Saddam and replacing it with a democratic gov't was a noble goal.

The final point has been questioned in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
why are you conflating the iraq war with the "war on terror?" -- please explain what one has to do with the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

My answer is this: Spreading democracy in the middle east should be a chief goal of this country. I believe that democracy is the best chance we have of winning the war on terror. Establishing a democracy in Iraq would go a long way to achieving this goal. I also point out the protests in Jordan and the change of ways of Kaddafi in Libya as supported evidence of the effects of the Iraq war. Not to sound all high and mighty, but can't we all agree that going into iraq on the basis of spreading democracy, which many gave as a reason for the war, is a noble cause?

[ACPlayer]

Lots of words. All mumbo jumbo, feel good liberal crap.

Utter rubbish.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not the worst offenders. I suppose Iraq was just a moderate dictatorship.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you please point out to me a more repressive regime in the Arab world than Saudi Arabia?

In terms of lack of political and religious freedoms, of repression of individual rights, and of the treatment of law breakers or political dissidents.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer is this: Spreading democracy in the middle east should be a chief goal of this country. I believe that democracy is the best chance we have of winning the war on terror. Establishing a democracy in Iraq would go a long way to achieving this goal. I also point out the protests in Jordan and the change of ways of Kaddafi in Libya as supported evidence of the effects of the Iraq war. Not to sound all high and mighty, but can't we all agree that going into iraq on the basis of spreading democracy, which many gave as a reason for the war, is a noble cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

question, what do you believe is the cause of terrorism. What makes Jamal strap-on 45lbs of high explosive and blow himself up on a bus? Is it really something that a new form of government would solve?

Establishing democracy is indeed a noble goal. However it is not the goal that the American people thought they were supporting in 2003. The war was sold on the grounds of WMDs, and support or terrorists, etc. Now that these have been shown to be false/misleading/lies (whatever) we see the "getting rid of saddam was a good thing" line.

Congress didnt approve a war in order to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives onlyto spread democracy. They voted for a war against an enemy who was on the brink of destroying the US. (As I write this I cannot believe this ever worked btw)

[ACPlayer]

.. but you need to define war on terror.

Then correlate that with how "democracy" will help and what exactly you mean by democracy. Democracy as in Iran? Democracy as in Iraq?

Then perhaps you can make an argument that what we did in Iraq did some good -- even though that was not why we went in.

It would also be mighty helpful if you stopped labelling opponents of the war as liberals. You immediately lose credibility, IMO.

Until you define it and show the relationship. I have to lump you with the others on this forum who talk about democracy because it makes them feel good and self important.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not the worst offenders. I suppose Iraq was just a moderate dictatorship.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you please point out to me a more repressive regime in the Arab world than Saudi Arabia?

In terms of lack of political and religious freedoms, of repression of individual rights, and of the treatment of law breakers or political dissidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, Cyrus, and as I posted before, we should seriously consider telling the Saudis that if they don't stop fomenting anti-Western/anti-American propaganda and hatred in their mosques worldwide (including in America!), and if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

I suspect that this is one rare point on which you and I might actually share similar sentiments, Cyrus;-)--even if you might hold off from the actual implentation of such a plan, for certain pragmatic concerns.

edited: By the way, just an afterthought: Saudi Arabia would make a pretty interesting 51st state...eh, Cyrus?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
would you have supported the war in Iraq based on the pretenses that a) removing Saddam was a good thing b) spreading democracy in the middle east is in our best interest and/or c) in a post 9/11 world, enemies in the mideast (particularly those who have professed a desire for our destrctiion) should be destroyed?

[/ QUOTE ]
None of these reasons hold water. More interesting, nobody really believes they do, not even you.

1. "Removing Saddam was a good thing."

Nobody in their right mind tries to justify a war by merely because the result will be a "good thing" generally or that a specific regime will be replaced. A lot of Americans might like to have the emir or premier or prime minister (or even President) of country X or Y replaced, but no one says that their desire for new government implies a justification for mass violence, much less war. There has to be something specifically awful and immediately threatening about that regime and a corresponding likely improvement, both an a scale so massive that a reasonable person would say "tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands of casualties are a worthy price." In other words, as you've phrased it, there is no minmally moral justification here.

2. "Spreading democracy in the middle east is in ouir best interest."

This is a joke, more of a tag line or campaign slogan. First, Bush has no desire in substituting the current pro-U.S. "anti-terror" regimes in the ME with likely hostile democracies. Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan all fit this bill.

Second, if Bush or the U.S. had any desire to do so, we'd see a lot more activity toward this end that's much cheaper and safer than war, such as cutting or conditioning the flow of arms and aid that help keep these autocracies and despotisms in power.

Third, if you look at some of the expert literature about foreign policy (like "Foreign Affairs"), you'll find a real debate about the extent that it's healthy for the U.S. to even tout democracy as a goal, given how the U.S. is more hated by the Arab street than by Arab governments. The White House response is that "democracy" really isn't that important to the policy, that it's just one ingredient that doesn't take priority over economic or political cooperation and so on. In other words, this isn't a goal that's taken seriously by the planners and policy-makers. (You see a lot of indirect signals of these throughout the press, such as the recent article in the NY Times describing the nefarious activities of the Jordanian secret police, pointing out how the support this regime receives in connection with the "war on terror" is one of those "paradoxes" of Bush's pro-democracy policy. Another is the disclosure that Bush was seeding the Iraqi media -- subverting it's "free press" -- with paid propaganda).

Fourth, it is absurd to think that people who care little for democracy in the U.S. want to create laboratories of democracy elsewhere. When's the last time you heard any official draw attention to the apathy and ignorance of the electorate, or suggest concrete means for combatting them? More than 2/3's of the U.S. public thought that Saddam was about to attack the U.S. with his WMD. How many Republicans or even Democrats have complained about that being a problem, other one that makes their job harder, given the current perception that they lied? How can a regime that lies to the public in order to garner their support for war have any credibility when they say they intend to "spread democracy."? Democracy means, at the very least, the minimally informed consent of the governed. Fooling people into sacrifices their blood and treasure for a cause they wouldn't if they were informed is the opposite of democracy.

Fifth, to reiterate the point above, no one beleives that war should ever be used to achieve comparative advantages in government. Nobody ever says: country X is a one-party state, but if we spend billions and kill thousands, maybe we can get them to tolerate more parties and points of view.

Sixth, how can a regime that helped keep Saddam in power on multiple occasions -- during the war with Iran and during the popular uprisings during the Gulf War -- have any claim to wanting to create democracy in Iraq? These were insidious, anti-democratic and pro-Saddam policy choices. The same institutions and often the same individuals who supported them are now proclaiming allegiance to "democracy?" It cannot rationally be accepted at face value.

3. "in a post 9/11 world, enemies in the mideast (particularly those who have professed a desire for our destrctiion) should be destroyed?"

This is just incoherent. Are "our enemies" whoever we're at war with? Then it's circular and self-justifying. If not, are you serious about your distinction between normal ME "enemies" and those who actually threaten us, all of whom are fair game but the latter of whom are especially inviting targets? Are you referring to Islamicist terrorists? They had nothing to do with the war in Iraq and the war has tended to create more of them, as predicted.

Finally, what do you mean by the "overall strategy in the war on terror?" Assume that Bush is fairly terming the Iraqi resistance as terrorism. How can you possibly justify the creation of a country that previsouly had no terrorists with twenty or thirty thousand terrorists as part of an "overall strategy" to reduce the number of terrorists?

[Chris Alger]

"Iraq violated the armistice from the first Gulf War multiple times and refused to abide by the terms despite multiple threats. Some of Iraq's violations included attacking coalition aircraft. This alone was justification for war.............."

All of which related, at most, to the issues of access for weapons inspectors and Saddam's purported continuing possession of WMD, both of which were mooted years before the war.

This is a classic example of how totalitarian sympathist "conservatives" can't resist the compulsion to bang their heads against the wall: the war was justified for reasons that we have to keep saying over and over again although everyone knows those reasons didn't exist.