Was it Cruel and Barbaric of the United States to Invade Iraq?

[Cooky]

...It's been a long time since anyone has discussed Iraq. Does anyone know the current situation there -I've heard rumors of women turning to prostitution, poverty, etc.

The media seems silent on the current state. Is ISIS still there?

 

[Cooky]

I hear they had an earthquake lately. What a miserable state of affairs.

https://nyti.ms/2jpbpNl

 

[Cooky]

I view the American invasion of Iraq--as well as that of Afghanistan--as one of the most heinous, inhumane, and drawn-out crimes in the last half century. The people responsible for orchestrating and launching it should be tried for war crimes--and many of those who voted in support of it should, unless they have changed their mind since then, take a deep look at their intellectual standards and moral compass.

I think it was a turning point in U.S. politics, where now, nobody wants to get involved in anything anymore.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it was a turning point in U.S. politics, where now, nobody wants to get involved in anything anymore.

Alas, the learned lesson will eventually be lost.

 

[ajay0]

I would say it was mostly an act of revenge for 9/11, which had outraged the Bush administration and they wanted some reactionary steps to take the steam off.

It unfortunately exacerbated the situation.

Saddam Hussein, for all his antics, enjoyed western culture, was a fan of Frank Sinatra, western business suits and cigars. He was a secular dictator who ensured the shia or sunni fundamentalists did not come to power and stabilised the region.

With his overthrow, the fundamentalists had no one to put them in check, leading to the rise of ISIS which made the situation worse.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But sources say he wasn't an overconfident, arrogant prick. Rather, he was a genuinely kind, possibly naive young man of only 27 yrs.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

First off, I will wager you're not genuinely sorry for anything -- not even a single needless death. Second off, "taunts" a global power? "Taunts"? That's your excuse for killing 100,000 or more noncombatants?

In fairness, just who killed whom when it comes to those non-combatant deaths is kind of arguable in many cases. "We" only account for some of them directly. Many are at the hands of their fellow countrymen in the subsequent destabilisation, which "we" caused, but just how much "we" can be held accountable for any specific death in the subsequent turbulence is hotly debatable.

But hey. I gave the order that led directly to one of those non-combatant casualties, so maybe I'm less than objective about it.

As for the whole "should we have been there in the first place?" thing? Well it made sense based on what most of us thought we knew at the time. Just how much and what the actual decision makers knew at the time is, again, debatable, about what we would find there and how we'd be recieved. IMHO Cheyney probably knew very well that there was no legitimate reason to invade, although I don't know what he thought would be the long term effects of the invasion.

TL;DR, that war ruined my life, was based on a lie, destabilised a whole region, and any good we did manage to achieve there has subsequently been pissed away by politicians and bureaucrats. Oh, and we'll be paying for it both financially and geopolitically for generations. But hey, at least Raytheon and Haliburton got some good returns.

 

[Sunstone]

In fairness, just who killed whom when it comes to those non-combatant deaths is kind of arguable in many cases. "We" only account for some of them directly. Many are at the hands of their fellow countrymen in the subsequent destabilisation, which "we" caused, but just how much "we" can be held accountable for any specific death in the subsequent turbulence is hotly debatable.

But hey. I gave the order that led directly to one of those non-combatant casualties, so maybe I'm less than objective about it.

As for the whole "should we have been there in the first place?" thing? Well it made sense based on what most of us thought we knew at the time. Just how much and what the actual decision makers knew at the time is, again, debatable, about what we would find there and how we'd be recieved. IMHO Cheyney probably knew very well that there was no legitimate reason to invade, although I don't know what he thought would be the long term effects of the invasion.

TL;DR, that war ruined my life, was based on a lie, destabilised a whole region, and any good we did manage to achieve there has subsequently been pissed away by politicians and bureaucrats. Oh, and we'll be paying for it both financially and geopolitically for generations. But hey, at least Raytheon and Haliburton got some good returns.

Excellent post. What has always angered me as much as the civilian suffering the war caused was the misuse of the militaries, and the deaths and injuries that resulted from it. People who volunteer to serve their country should never be sent into unnecessary wars. It's obscene to use such dedication to such foul ends.

Several sources state that George Bush, from even before the very first day he entered office, was hellbent on going to war to get Saddam. Some speculate his reason was to revenge Saddam's failed assassination attempt against his father. Others point to oil. Whatever the reasons he might or might not have had, it's agreed that he was determined to find some pretext for war long before 9/11.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it was a turning point in U.S. politics, where now, nobody wants to get involved in anything anymore.

The politicians successfully hoodwink every generation -- sometimes more than once.

 

[wellwisher]

If I recall didn't Iraq invaded Kuwait. President Bush Senior reacted and demonstrated the modern military power of the USA, when the US annihilated the Iraqi military in the mother of all tank battles. Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world, with Russian equipment, but was beaten to a pulp with very little U S loss. That was very impressive. This caused the Soviet Union, to blink and dissolve since they realized they were no match for America. The vision of Regan was realized and the Cold War ended. It worked out well. Kuwait was liberated and paid its tab back the US for its assistance. Trump learned form this and now expects countries to pull their weight.

Saddam was spared by Bush senior and allowed to stay in power, since he has been an ally against Iran, and he was still a stabilizing force in the region. However, Saddam became emboldened again and attempted to assassinate Bush Senior, causing Bush Junior to retaliate after 911. This invasion was assisted by false intel from the CIA that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was the first time Democrats used US intel agencies to create false narratives to undermine a president. Later they would use the FBI to create the fake Russian collusion that would eventually come back to bite the Democrats in 2019.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the war he was shipping them off to Syria.

Iraq war was justified as Saddam was increasingly aggressive as time went on. Not to mention his invasion of Kuwait earlier on.

We did screw things up on the pr side of things by continually changing the reasons why we went to war and moving the goalposts.

While it wasn't entirely under true pretenses , it certainly wasn't under totally false pretenses either.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If I recall didn't Iraq invaded Kuwait. President Bush Senior reacted and demonstrated the modern military power of the USA, when the US annihilated the Iraqi military in the mother of all tank battles. Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world, with Russian equipment, but was beaten to a pulp with very little U S loss. That was very impressive. This caused the Soviet Union, to blink and dissolve since they realized they were no match for America. The vision of Regan was realized and the Cold War ended. It worked out well. Kuwait was liberated and paid its tab back the US for its assistance. Trump learned form this and now expects countries to pull their weight.

That is a wildly inaccurate summary. Iraqi defeat was largely because of inadequate officer training. The US turned the GPS off and the Iraqis couldn't navigate away from highways, and the highways became killing fields. The Soviet Union certainly didn't "blink and dissolve" because they came to some sort of realisation of military inadequacy. Their collapse was purely economic. We'll never know how an East/West shooting war would have turned out, but most credible planners and strategists put their money on Soviet victory, at least in the European theater.

Spoiler: What happens when a routed force doesn't know how to navigate off road and the other guy has uncontested air superiority

Saddam was spared by Bush senior and allowed to stay in power, since he has been an ally against Iran, and he was still a stabilizing force in the region. However, Saddam became emboldened again and attempted to assassinate Bush Senior, causing Bush Junior to retaliate after 911. This invasion was assisted by false intel from the CIA that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was the first time Democrats used US intel agencies to create false narratives to undermine a president. Later they would use the FBI to create the fake Russian collusion that would eventually come back to bite the Democrats in 2019.

Um, again utterly false. The intelligence services were controlled by Republicans at the time, and their analysis was extremely cherry picked for the explicit purpose of justifying invasion. It wasn't a "Democrat plot to make a sitting President look bad".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Actually Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the war he was shipping them off to Syria.

I've seen you make this claim before. Got any non conspiracy geocities site evidence to support it?

Iraq war was justified as Saddam was increasingly aggressive as time went on. Not to mention his invasion of Kuwait earlier on.

The invasion of Kuwait was a decade before, and Saddam had complied with all the post Gulf War requirements for peace. Citing Kuwait is not a valid cassus belli.

We did screw things up on the pr side of things by continually changing the reasons why we went to war and moving the goalposts.

While it wasn't entirely under true pretenses , it certainly wasn't under totally false pretenses either.

Well, most of us who were sent at the time believed the reasons we were told. In hindsight, though? Yeah. Pretty false, pretense-wise.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Saddam was an awful despot, but that doesn't excuse the negative consequences that had resulted from our sloppy handing of the situation, nor does it excuse an invasion and prolonged occupation under false pretenses.

You can't even make a grand "ends justify the means" argument, since, bad as Saddam absolutely was, it turns out he was stabilising his region and the alternative, as we have since found, is much worse.

 

[Stevicus]

The Soviet Union certainly didn't "blink and dissolve" because they came to some sort of realisation of military inadequacy. Their collapse was purely economic.

I don't know if I would agree with that. I think a lot of it was due to conscience. They realized that what they were doing was morally wrong, so they tried to change their ways - and their collapse soon followed. It would be comparable to what would happen if the United States decided to give back all the land that was stolen from the Native tribes. The U.S. would collapse, too.

That's why the right-wing often lambastes the left-wing and favors "national interests" over moral conscience (even as they try to claim the moral high ground).

That may also explain why Russia is the way it is now, since they've learned the hard way that "doing the right thing" may often turn out terribly wrong.

 

[Cooky]

You can't even make a grand "ends justify the means" argument, since, bad as Saddam absolutely was, it turns out he was stabilising his region and the alternative, as we have since found, is much worse.

Turns out that's true actually! Unfortunately... Who knew how rotten those people really were until they were liberated.

...Should have left them suppressed. Now, most people are okay with M.E. suppression. We just need to stop trading oil with Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Just completely drop them, and ban them from coming here.

We have South America we can deal with. Maybe they're not as hopeless.

 

[Cooky]

I don't know if I would agree with that. I think a lot of it was due to conscience. They realized that what they were doing was morally wrong, so they tried to change their ways - and their collapse soon followed. It would be comparable to what would happen if the United States decided to give back all the land that was stolen from the Native tribes. The U.S. would collapse, too.

That's why the right-wing often lambastes the left-wing and favors "national interests" over moral conscience (even as they try to claim the moral high ground).

That may also explain why Russia is the way it is now, since they've learned the hard way that "doing the right thing" may often turn out terribly wrong.

No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Stevicus]

No good deed goes unpunished.

Yes, that too.

 

[Valjean]

Iraq had previously invaded Kuwait and Iraq's absolute leader was threatening other countries, and therefore the American people were easily fooled into going to war. We only found out later on that there weren't actually any WMD's there.

The Kuwait invasion -- to which we'd given Saddam tacit assent -- was well over by the time we invaded Iraq. Moreover, the regime was a stabilizing force in the region.

We knew from the start that there were no significant WMDs. Most of the rumors had been planted by Britain's MI6 and the CIA in various propaganda operations like: Operation Mass Appeal - Wikipedia
The weapons inspectors reported they had no significant WMD. Scott Ritter was all over the news spilling the beans about the deception.

Moreover, the US wasn't particularly concerned about Saddam. We had sold him most of the WMD, in full knowledge that he was using them on the Kurds &al. and he was a good customer and a useful CIA asset,

Also as backward animals to murder this kid who carried no weapons. Since they are indigenous apparently it means killing all comers is a valiant defense of a homeland and does not signal that they are backward murderers, because murder only happens in modern civilization.

Morality applies to human interaction. All the aborigines knew was that strange, threatening, manlike creatures were showing up. They weren't real people -- the islanders knew all the people in the world.

The missionary intended to destroy the islanders; to destroy their culture. Primitive cultures aren't separated into parts that can be unplugged and replaced with new modules. There's no "religion" category that can be teased out of the social weave without the whole culture unravelling.
Elliot was anthropologically naive. Contact between a modern people and a small society of primitives almost always results in disaster -- for the primitives.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We

"We" whom? I had not idea, and that was not what the president was telling us.

The Kuwait invasion -- to which we'd given Saddam tacit assent

If you knew all this why didn't you say so before Saddam did it? What's with all this "We knew" stuff? Maybe you knew and didn't tell anybody.

...Primitive cultures...

Is 'Primitive' another way of saying 'Backward' ?

Morality applies to human interaction. All the aborigines knew was that strange, threatening, manlike creatures were showing up. They weren't real people -- the islanders knew all the people in the world.

So you desire to put a shiny bubble around these people in order to preserve their culture from missionaries. Ok, I get that you have such an opinion. I don't have a fondness for missionaries, either, but it's a far cry from killing whoever shows up on the sand. I also don't see why I should be concerned about preserving their culture from every outside influence.