Was there any justification for the war in Iraq?

[Machinehead]

If these points are justification for war, then we could justify going to war with a lot other nations. And these were not the reasons we were given.

The OP was talking about ignoring the reasons for war anyways, at least the reasons we were given at the time. And do we agree with the reasons we are now being given? Is this correct?

My answer is no. First, the idea that bringing democracy to Iraq will spread democracy in the middle east is just a theory. We're basically just testing it out, and from the way things are going over there, I have major doubts that it'll work.

Second, I think this war isn't making us safer. I actually think we're creating a whole new breed of terrorists. Most people know by now that we weren't attacked because "They hate us for our freedom." We were attacked because of our foreign policy in the mid east. Now I'm not justifying why they attacked us, but obviously we pissed them off. Now we're just enraging a whole other group of people. I think it's safe to say these are not rational people we're dealing with. They are extremists and fanatics. We're just giving them more reasons to hate us and attack us.

Also, the "If Clinton had the balls to invade Iraq" arguement is weak. Have you heard of Operation Desert Fox? Yes Hussein violated the UN Security Council resolution and interfered with weapons inspectors. So Clinton launched a series of air strikes at Iraqi military sites instead of a full invasion. And now we've found out that Clinton's air strikes were extremely effective in destroying any weapon programs they had. Maybe Clinton knew taking out Hussein and occupying Iraq was going to be a serious problem with no exit strategy. The first Bush knew that, which is why he didn't take Hussein out in the first Gulf War.

If Bush Jr. asked his father or Clinton before the war, he might've known too. Instead he asked a "higher father" and the voices in his head told him to invade Iraq.

[Eagles]

[ QUOTE ]
(b) If spreading democracy was the objective, it would be reasonable to start from the worst offenders. Such as Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and others like them which are outright dictatorships of the most anachronistic kind.


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

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been a regular reader of this forum, and the politics section specifically. Now it has become apparent to me that this section is predominantly liberal. As a conservative, I hold no disdain for this forum. So what if this forum is mostly liberal. But there is a question I must ask of everyone in this forum, with the knowledge that most opposed the Iraqi War.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahaha. I am going to enjoy your posts. I can tell.

[ QUOTE ]
Forgetting the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq (WMD's) and for the (in my opinion)lackluster handling of post-war Iraq, 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 ]

No. I supported the war at the time based on the WMD lies.


[ QUOTE ]
My point in bringing up this question is that i feel many who oppose the war and Bush do so based on false promises and mistakes of the Bush admin. instead of actual sound reasons for the war and overall strategy in the war on terror. My personal belief is that whether or not one would agree that the way we tried to adress the problems of the mideast was a success, one cannot deny that to win this war on terror, massive reform needs to be taken towards democracy in the mideast and the war in iraq was an attempt at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, one can. We're not invading Saudi Arabia, are we?

[ QUOTE ]
So what do people think? Is our aim for democracy in the middle east admirable but our execution a disaster or should we not even try to expand democracy in the region? Should we look at ourselves in order to win the war on terror and not try to change others attitudes towards us?


[/ QUOTE ]

What do these questions have to do with the war? Do you contend that invasion and occupation are the only means to "promote democracy" or "change attitudes"?

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know and i will offer my opinions throughout the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to it.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Now it has become apparent to me that this section is predominantly liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

guess again. the majority of posters here are libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. i would argue that they are closer to republicans/conservatives as to where they fall on the hot button social issues, but that's debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
I must ask of everyone in this forum, with the knowledge that most opposed the Iraqi War.

[/ QUOTE ]

my guess is that most people were for it, at least when it began.

[ 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 ]

i think the word pretense is more accurate than you intended. As to your question, (a) removing a murderous dictator; (b) replacing a dictatorship with democracy; and (c) killing people who want to kill us and have the means to kill us -- are all "good" things.

The problem with your question is that it does not consider the methods and resulting consequences for achieving these goals. And the neocons and most supporters of the war failed to consider this as well.

Removing a murderous dictator is a noble goal, but if the method is an invasion and occupation resulting in 30-50 thousand civilians dead; close to 3 thousand of our soldiers dead and almost 20 thousand maimed; and a cost to us of $80 billion a year, with the possibility of an occupation lasting 10-20 years and all out civil war -- then an invasion and occupation are not the best course of action.

likewise, replacing a dictatorship with democracy is generally a good thing (though from a realpolitik point of view its debatable. for instance, is an elected theocracy who is belligerant to our interests better than a dictator who is an ally -- i don't know). in any case, if an invasion and occupation is the method by which you're bringing democracy, you have to ask what are the attendant costs to the nation being democratized and the nation doing the democratizing. again, 10-20 year occupation with the chance of a civil war may not be the best way to bring it about.

finally, killing those who want to kill us is a good thing, but the people we are actually killing also have ot have the means and capability to kill us. furthermore, if we kill 50 thousand civilians to kill a couple of thousand terrorists the attendant costs may suggest other means.

[ QUOTE ]
My point in bringing up this question is that i feel many who oppose the war and Bush do so based on false promises and mistakes of the Bush admin. instead of actual sound reasons for the war and overall strategy in the war on terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

many who originally supported the war now oppose it because of the ineptitude of this administration. also, why are you conflating the iraq war with the "war on terror?" -- please explain what one has to do with the other.

i'm tired now.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now it has become apparent to me that this section is predominantly liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me stop you right there. Liberal in the old sense of the word maybe, but this forum is practically a Cato institute subsidiary. No wonder you guys thinks there's a liberal media, jeez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on now

[ShakeZula06]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the costs outweighed by the benifit so far?

Did it appear pre-war that the cost was outweighed by the benifits?

Sure it was wrong for Saddam not to abide by agreement, but I hardly think that this has been an adequate way for us to go about it. This is coming from someone who supported the war before it started.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now it has become apparent to me that this section is predominantly liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me stop you right there. Liberal in the old sense of the word maybe, but this forum is practically a Cato institute subsidiary. No wonder you guys thinks there's a liberal media, jeez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on now

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that right-wingers think the world is against them? You're not the underdogs anymore you're winning. Noones keeping you down, enjoy your victories don't wallow in paranoia.

[ShakeZula06]

Because "right wingers" are not in control. Liberals that call themselves neo-cons are in control. I don't support the huge government Bush is creating. I don't support politically correct warfare Bush is fighting. I don't approve of campaigne funding laws that both partys have set up. I don't like his open border policy or his plan to set up amnesty under the guise of a guest worker program. I'm not happy about the spending habits of the republican controlled congress and white house. I don't like that Bush has extended the entitlement society instead of reducing it. I don't like that the Republican congress got elected uder the "contract with America" and 11 years later still very little have been done to achieve it.

I don't wallow in paronia. I feel very greatful to live in America, but we have lots of problems that need to be corrected. Bush and those in control of the Republican party are the problem, not the solution.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But all the above presumes Washington genuinely wants the terrorist threat to disappear completely. Does it? I'm not so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

By Washington you mean what?

The senior leaders?

The Administration?

Congress?

C'mon now, who actually wants this to continue?

[/ QUOTE ]

The politicians who get reelected/elected based on the war on terror certainly do. There is little actual threat from terror, certainly not to these highly gaurded, well connected individuals.

The goal of a politican is to stay elected. they will follow anything that gets them to this end. When the electorate moves away from their support of war then the elected will as well. Politicans must change their stance or be voted out.

As it stands though many, many people are in fear of terror and vote with this in mind. Interestingly those in the greatest danger of a terrorist attack (those living in NYC, DC, LA, SF, etc.) are very anti-republican and mostly against the war.

[theweatherman]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, are you talking about the gulf war?

I think we need to decide how long ago we can go back to decide what events are punishable in the present. Gassing the Kurds was in '88 (15 years before this war). Iraq invaded Kuwait 13 years before. Are these still issues which can start wars?

What about the US internment of the Japanese ~60 yr ago? Is that still game for war? Or maybe our invasion of Grenada? that was pretty recent.

How far back in history can we go to pick issues and start wars over them?