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

[Sunstone]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

 

[Cooky]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

Just like when a man robs and steals, and goes to jail, his wife children suffer, so does the Iraqi people suffer when their president taunts the global power.

We're sorry for that, but stupidity is no excuse. Saddam was a fool, and a lot of people have suffered because of it.

 

[Rival]

While I am pro-military and have never seen myself as a pacifist, I believe that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. I was only young when it happened and I can't say I'm aware of all the ins and outs of it, but it suffices to say that I have never seen any credible reason as to why it should have taken place and the Great Lie was enough to make me look sideways at it. At the same time, I believe the islanders were justified trying to protect their home. It has been long known that this particular tribe is militant and without patience, not to mention we have seen the effects of Christian proselytising in other areas; all it does is destroy culture and wipe people out.

 

[Sunstone]

Just like when a man robs and steals, and goes to jail, his wife children suffer, so does the Iraqi people suffer when their president taunts the global power.

We're sorry for that, but stupidity is no excuse.

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?

 

[Cooky]

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?

Let's just not make this about me, Sun. Especially considering I have no reason to be sorry as I am not in charge of the U.S. military and have not served in the armed forces.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

I see both as cruel and barbaric.

 

[sun rise]

War is to me cruel and barbaric by definition. So the questions I would ask in general for any war are:

1. Was it necessary?
2. Could we have done it in a way to minimize civilian casualties?
3. What would have happened if we had not made stupid mistakes post invasion?
4. What are the long term consequences to Iraq and the region?

My answers are

1. The evidence as I know it says 'no'
2. Yes we could have done a better job.
3. Yes the outcome would have better without the stupid mistakes.
4. The long-term is still playing out.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric"

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.

 

[Rival]

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.

As far as I know, this tribe has had a history with people trying to contact them and the first episode didn't go so well. After this they implemented a strict attack policy.

 

[Stevicus]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

Probably, depending on how one defines "cruel and barbaric." But the 2003 war in Iraq was a sequel to the earlier war in 1991, which was ostensibly motivated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (which itself might be viewed as "cruel and barbaric"). This would lead to the question as to whether U.S. interventionist policies in general are "cruel and barbaric" (which I think they are).

A lot of wars we've fought could be considered "cruel and barbaric," but then others might argue that they were necessary and good from the standpoint of practical national interests. Those of us who are living and enjoying life in America today are doing so on conquered land, which would make us beneficiaries of cruelty and barbarism. That's the great contradiction that we all face, such as pointed out by pro-military types during the anti-war movement, who called the peace-loving hippies hypocrites for enjoying life in America, living off the fat of the land, while doing nothing but complaining and condemning about the manner in which their "good life" came about. It was echoed in Jack Nicholson's famous "You can't handle the truth" speech in A Few Good Men.

So, in essence, we are a cruel and barbaric people, recipients and beneficiaries of living in a cruel and barbaric nation, which itself was an outgrowth of a cruel and barbaric civilization in Europe that goes all the way back to the Roman Empire.

So, to answer your question, the attack on Iraq was unquestionably an act of cruelty and barbarism. But even barbarians had some loot and plunder to show for their actions, something to benefit their own people. We haven't had a war like that in a very, very long time - not since the Spanish-American War.

But there's still the question of practicality. Was the war against Iraq practical and necessary for US interests? Did we, as a nation, benefit one iota from that war? Obviously not.

 

[Godobeyer]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

It's was war because of lies in Iraq .sadly Iraq people pay the consequences till now.

There are thousands of Nigers and Malis cross Algerian border every month ,there Algerian army there ,never stop them or shot them.

In other ways , Algeria bring them back by planes or buses to their original countries.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was only young when it happened and I can't say I'm aware of all the ins and outs of it, but it suffices to say that I have never seen any credible reason as to why it should have taken place and the Great Lie was enough to make me look sideways at it.

Lot's of us in America were like "Wait a minute! They guy we want is that way. Why are you going that way? You're shooting in the wrong direction!"

As far as I know, this tribe has had a history with people trying to contact them and the first episode didn't go so well. After this they implemented a strict attack policy.

Most episodes haven't went well, and the Indian government has banned travel to their island. Ultimately, the guy died violating the laws of a sovereign nation that he lied to about his intentions for visiting. He was a dumb wanker who ignored facts, warnings, and laws. I can't feel sorry for him because he deliberately took steps that put his life at risk, much like an overconfident and arrogant prick thinking they can successfully and safely accomplish what no one has, and in this case that he alone would have the divine protection of Jesus unlike the rest who probably came to preach and were killed for showing up. He said he didn't want to die, but he apparently didn't want to accept that was a very likely outcome from showing up to their island.

 

[Cooky]

I can't feel sorry for him because he deliberately took steps that put his life at risk, much like an overconfident and arrogant prick thinking they can successfully and safely accomplish what no one has, and in this case that he alone would have the divine protection of Jesus unlike the rest who probably came to preach and were killed for showing up. He said he didn't want to die, but he apparently didn't want to accept that was a very likely outcome from showing up to their island.

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

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and of course, he's now bound for heaven, because he suffered and died for trying to spread the word of God amongst the Godless...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

You can only be described as overconfident, as well as reckless and feckless and irresponsible, if you think going to such a place won't end in disaster. At best the guy could hope for the arrows missing, and maybe just taking one in the thigh. That's it. It gets no better than that. For anyone. At worst, which happened, is death. In between was a purgatory of criminal charges and possible fines and jail time. There was no possible good outcome for him, and his failure to see this does not paint a flattering picture of his character. It could be chalked up to immaturity if he were 17, but at 27 he went about a foolish path that could be described as suicidal because it's a path that puts people's lives at risk and gets them killed.

 

[74x12]

In 2003, during the Bush/Cheney administration, a US led coalition invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Credible estimates put the number of civilian deaths from the war at above 100,000, and the number of homeless refugees at about four million -- half of whom fled the country.

There is most likely not a general on earth who does not know that -- in any war -- more noncombatants will die than combatants. War is hell on soldiers -- but even more so on civilians. Therefore, it seems unlikely that either Bush or Cheney was uniformed about the consequences their war of aggression would have for the Iraqi people prior to ordering the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that 47% to 60% of the American people supported the invasion.

Recently, a Christian missionary was killed by an indigenous people when he tried to invade their island uninvited by them. Some people have described the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" for defending their homeland. Do the same people see the American led invasion of Iraq as "cruel and barbaric"?

Recently, an American president ordered armed troops to the US-Mexico border to help fortify it against a migration of about 3,000 refugees headed for the US. That president threatened to authorize the troops to shoot the refugees if they threw rocks -- mere rocks -- at the troops. Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

Of course the whole Iraq invasion thing was on trumped up charges and didn't need to happen. It was done for ulterior motives and unfortunately at the time I did support the invasion. I was only a young kid at the time and didn't understand. Since then I've realized how messed up the world is and that you cannot trust your own government.

As for the islanders they're obviously primitive, unsophisticated and barbaric; but can we really blame them for shooting someone they didn't know?How do they know what he was up to? They didn't know if he was good or bad. They only know they kill any outsiders. Which is apparently what they always try to do. I do admire the missionary's efforts to share the gospel; but I cannot blame the tribesmen for responding the way they did. The missionary -- although he is admirable -- must have known the risks involved. So for some Christians to say that the islanders should be punished somehow is quite unchristian in my opinion.

 

[Kapalika]

Do the same people who see the Islanders as "cruel and barbaric" also see that president as "cruel and barbaric"?

Well following their logic, it's only cruel and barbaric to defend yourself, nto to attack or try to destroy a people or their culture.

They believe it's normal for them to be aggressors it's not cruel when it's their people! Only when their victims fight back are their victims cruel and barbaric!

 

[Revoltingest]

I recall a National Geographic article from long ago about the number of deaths directly
attributable to Saddam's regime. The yearly total exceeded the 100,000 figure. It was
brutal there....a friend escaped because his friends were being disappeared & beaten to
death. So I wouldn't consider the invasion either cruel or barbaric. Several Iraqi expats
I know approved (initially) of the invasion. It appears we made it less bad than it was.
So instead, I call it wasteful. It wasn't our business to fix their country, particularly at
such great cost (several trillion dollars) for such an unsuccessful fix (a clusterboink).

 

[Father Heathen]

Just like when a man robs and steals, and goes to jail, his wife children suffer, so does the Iraqi people suffer when their president taunts the global power.

We're sorry for that, but stupidity is no excuse. Saddam was a fool, and a lot of people have suffered because of it.

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.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.