Was it wrong to even consider pursuit of military action in Iraq?

[Hippo_Tron]

Okay let's face it, the Bush administration's handling of war and decission to go in when they did was total bullshit. Bush had NO excuse not to wait for UN support once we discovered that there were no nuclear weapons that Saadam was about to use on the US. But had Bush gone along with the UN gotten the security council on board etc. etc. and finally the world and not the US decided that it was time to use military force on Saadam Hussein's regime, would you have supported the war?

[moof]

1. Your premise is in error.

Had the Neocons went along with the UN plan the WMD claim would have been found to have been false so where would the justification for armed force have come from ?

[Hippo_Tron]

8. It's just a hypothetical... n/t

[judy]

2. War for what reason ?

The U.N would not have given support for a war about WMD's that did not exist.
There was no direct threat to any other nation.
The genocide had happened 20 years ago, under Rumsfeld's guidance, and was not happening currently.
The Arab league was not asking for help.

Why would anyone in the UN approve an invasion of Iraq ?

There are plenty of bloody dictators in the world. Why would they have picked Saddam ?

[forgethell]

9. Just to play devil's advocate

you gotta start somewhere. Now that assumes that genocidal dictactors are worth going after. Maybe they're not. But it's a bogus argument to say that because you can't do everything, you can't do anything.

People, if we want to get rid of *, we have to make better arguments than that, and unfortunatley, I hear way to much of that. I'm not saying that I know the right way to get our message across, but I know the wrong way when I hear it.

[Looiewu]

11. Genocidal Dictators...

Apply these arguments to Adolph Hitler, Bonaparte, Stalin, or any other historical figure that was ultimately defeated by armed conflict.

There is no way for us to know how far these despots would have made it had they survived; but we can certainly guess based on thier track records.

As for Saddam, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[rasputin1952]

14. So, if that is your notion...

Why not invade Cuba?

Why not invade China?

Why not invade N. Korea?

Why not invade Iran?

Why not invade ANYONE ELSE? After all, anyone could become our enemy at the drop of a hat.

How about France? They don't support us, they must be against us; maybe we should start a war there, just in case they happen to invade the Netherlands in retaliation for our not buying their wine.

BASIC PREMISE: Because we started this war, we are no better than the despots that you mentioned. THEY started wars too, the rest of us tried to finish them. bush is no better than Hitler going into Poland, Mussolini going into NE Africa, Napolean going into Europe, Tojo going into China.

We keep a military to protect us, there was never a threat from Saddam to this country. Osama; we should have gotten him, but there was little but rubble under his feet, Iraq has OIL!!!!

I don't like Saddam....but he was never a threat to the US!

:grr: :nuke:

bush! is a threat to the US! :grr:

[forgethell]

25. Saddam may not have been a threat

but there are a LOT of people who are convinced otherwise. I think we would be wiser to point this out than to say why not so & so. You can get three good answers. #1. Why not?, #2. don't have the money to get them all, and #3 Take 'em in order. Do you want to hear those answers? do you want to start people thinking along those lines? I guarantee that * & company already are.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. 'Saddam may not have been a threat'

Enough said. Without a UN resolution (which would only have been forthcoming if he was a threat of some kind), there was no excuse to attack.

In your post (number 9, above), you state:

that assumes that genocidal dictators are worth going after. Maybe they're not.

In a more perfect world, one such as Saddam might be worth going after. However, as the world is, he was not. By going after him, we have half of the army's combat divisions tied up on occupation duty in a nation whose people would like us to leave. Why would they like us to leave? Because they know the difference between liberation and colonial occupation.

The problem is that there was nothing sincere about anything Bush and his people said about the invasion. The WMDs and the associations with al Qaida were bald faced lies. Saddam was a awful dictator, but so are many others. That still isn't why Bush went into Iraq.

The real truth is that the invasion of Iraq was gunboat diplomacy with cruise missiles. Our troops are there so that an American administrator and his hand-picked Iraqi quislings can sell the country to transnational corporations with a thin veneer of legality it does not deserve.

The worst part about this is that it had absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorists. Osama bin Laden is the one we're supposed to be after. Does anybody remember him? He is responsible for the murder of nearly 3000 Americans. Saddam had nothing to do with it. In terms of a legitimate war on terror, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a complete waste of time and resources. However, it does something to remunerate Bush's campaign contributors.

That should tell us all where Bush's priorities lay. It isn't in protecting average Americans from maniacal thugs like Osama.

Every American who isn't a member of the board of directors of a transnational corporation should feel sold out.

[forgethell]

31. I'm not disagreeing with you.

I just said that a lot of Americans are convinced that Saddam was a threat. this is fact, not opinion. Alot of people are convinced that a lot of things that are wrong are right. You know, there's even a flat earth society.

[pansypoo53219]

17. uh

stalin just died. no armed conflict to save all the russians he killed.

and sadaam was just an oedipal moby dick for george and a way to MAIPULATE the 02' elections.

[judy]

15. Yes, you gotta start somewhere...

For example, the UN should have sanctioned the US for supporting Saddam in 1984...For starters...
The UN should have sanctioned the US in 1973 for supporting Augusto Pinochet.
etc.

[worldgonekrazy]

32. To end the sanctions

If it had been pitched to me that way (by a guy I thought I could trust), I probably would've bought it.

The sanctions supposedly resulted in 1.4 million Iraqi deaths during the decade they were in place. They were there in part to weaken Iraq for a later attack (not a just reason) but also because it was necessary to keep Hussein in check (a just reason because it was for the good of the region).

So the only real way to end the situation would be to get Hussein out of power. If that were why we did it I would probably have supported the war.

[Devlzown]

3. I have to say no.

The war isn't unjust because we are fighting it without UN support, it's unjust because it's being fought over lies.

[Bucky]

4. I don't think it was wrong to *consider* it.

The problem is that having considered it, Bush then made the wrong decision. As shown with Libya, negotiation works. Nothing justifies the 470 American deaths or the 15,000 Iraqi deaths or the big old recruitment boost we just gave to al Qaeda with this idiocy.

[many a good man]

5. How end sanctions?

I agree with the above statement that the UN probably would not have authorized force if SH remained under containment.

However, this is a great big sticky problem for international organizations. The sanctions had to end some time. How can the world community force change when economic sanctions don't work as intended? When the dictator uses sanctions to inflict further suffering on his people?

The threat of military intervention may have forced him to readmit inspectors. Maybe he would have readmitted them if we simply asked politely.

The world needs to think seriously about the carrots and sticks we have to offer countries to promote good behavior. We need to find better carrots if we want to use international institutions as a counterbalance to US militarism. Does anybody have any good ideas?

[drdigi420]

26. the inspectors HAD been readmitted

bush pulled them out so he could invade

[worldgonekrazy]

33. Doesn't solve the sanctions problem

The sanctions had to end. If the U.N. had simple lifted them it would have a) served as notice that sanctions don't work (which means misbehaving countries would no longer fear them) and b) allowed Hussein's power to grow. Neither one of those is a good thing. What is another alternative besides war to forcibly remove Hussein?

[quaker bill]

6. No

First, I see the scenario as unlikely because further weapons inspections would have turned up nothng.

That being aside decisions in regard to the morality of a war have little to do with how many other countries join in.

Had the administration convinced more world leaders to buy into the lies, would it have been better?

Killing innocent civilians over a non-existant threat is simply wrong even when done democratically and multinationally.

[salinen]

7. We should bomb

the country that made it possible for Iraq to obtain WMD's. Oh, wait, that's the U.S.

[rasputin1952]

16. LOL....

I'll keep my eyes on the sky now!

Good thing that missle shield is in such good shape, we've solved the problem of attacking ourselves!

:bounce:

[Looiewu]

10. UN support in Iraq

Yep! Yer exactly right!

We should have let the UN and the Security Counsel do as good of a job in Iraq as they did in Somalia, Rowanda, et al.

[rasputin1952]

19. Normally...

I would welcome you to DU; but I can see that there is little point.

However, you should understand that the UN did a pretty good job when we paid our share, and gave it the muscle and teeth it needed. Now, who wants a UN when this admin wants to rule the world anyway?

The object of youor scorn is unwarranted; The UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD's, neither have we? where is your logic?

:shrug:

[drdigi420]

27. we should have done more to enlist UN support

you rednecks need to stop pretending we're the only show on the strip and realize that we need to stop bullying our way in the world

'the tighter the empire squeezes it's grip, the more systems will slip through its fingers'
A Princess from a galaxy far far away

[Columbia]

28. UN support

Key members of the UN Security Council would never have supported a direct resolution for war since it was in their direct self-interest to not do so.

[DrBB]

12. Matter of context--Iraq was not a PRIORITY

They cooked it up as one, but there was no reason to. There were much higher priorities--actually pursuing al Qaeda--which the aggression against Iraq preempted. We know that all kinds of resources were pulled away from that pursuit in order to carry out this non-sequitur invasion of Iraq.

That said, I could see a case being made that taking out Saddam for purely humanitarian reasons, with full international support, would be a good thing, other things being equal. But other things weren't.

[0rganism]

13. Do you not count enforcement of no-fly-zones as military action?

IIRC, US and UK aircraft were bombing Iraqi facilities for 12 years, weekly at the very least. This is hardly a no-action scenario IMHO.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Excuse my ignorance but who is IIRC?

Thanks in advance.

Don

[0rganism]

24. Acronym: If I Remember Correctly

Just an FYI ;-)

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Exactly why that bullshit that "Clinton didn't do anything" is wrong...

But I was referring to the invasion of Iraq.

[madfloridian]

20. It was wrong to invade Iraq. Lies were told. Here are a few links.

http://www.againstbombing.com/adminlies.htm

http://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

White House exaggerating Iraqi threat. From 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

Misleading the Nation to War
http://consortiumnews.com/2002/101502a.html

[worldgonekrazy]

34. I don't think that is in dispute here

The question, as I see it, is whether there could have been any rational basis for the attack. It is an interesting question and just because we're kicking it around doesn't mean that we support this war as it was perpetrated by the Bush Admin.

[KoKo]

22. No! Not as long as we had given Saddam everything he needed to become

Saddam. This intervention by our Government in other Governments affairs has GOT TO STOP! No!

[JohnKleeb]

23. Personally y'all I thought it was the wrong idea from the gitko

[UTUSN]

30. Uh, Yes... n/t

[Karenina]

35. It was

ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, STUPID, SELF-DEFEATING, AN ESCALATION OF VIOLENCE, UNNECESSARY... Oh fuck it. I second UTUSN.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

37. I'll third

[Padraig18]

36. If it wasn't wrong, nothing will ever, ever be wrong again. n/t