-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was the war justified?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
No*s
Captain Obvious
Was the war justified? I wasn't convinced at the time, and I frown on it now. I can understand, though, how someone who beleived that Saddam did have WMDs would come to their conclusion. I just didn't share that view, nor would it lead me to that conclusion.
What should we do? We broke it, and now we need to fix it, unconditionally. We cannot leave these people in anarchy and without a stable government, so we can't pull out till we've built one. That's just as immoral as invading in the first place, and it's always selfish, because it's about "our boys" "our men and women," but many, many more would die in a civil war with Islamofascists if we pulled out, and then they would be subjected to a theocracy. We can't leave now
.
What should we do? We broke it, and now we need to fix it, unconditionally. We cannot leave these people in anarchy and without a stable government, so we can't pull out till we've built one. That's just as immoral as invading in the first place, and it's always selfish, because it's about "our boys" "our men and women," but many, many more would die in a civil war with Islamofascists if we pulled out, and then they would be subjected to a theocracy. We can't leave now
.Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Yes, the war was justified. Even though they didn't have WMD, I still believe the world is safer without Saddam.
US should stabilize and withdraw once that is complete.
US should stabilize and withdraw once that is complete.
I have to partly disagree with you, Saw. I don't think the war was justified. The notion of a premptive strike sets a dangerous precedent. For instance: Because we used it in Iraq, China can now use it against Taiwan.
But I do agree with you that now that we are in Iraq, we cannot leave until the country is politically stable.
But I do agree with you that now that we are in Iraq, we cannot leave until the country is politically stable.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
No comment.
robtex
Veteran Member
It is very complicated and not black-and-white on any level. Forgoing the WMD and the iraq involement in 911 (as it has been suggested by Bush), there are quite a few things to know about the US/Iraq relationship before 9/11
1) Saddam was on good terms with the USA just a few years before the invasion.
2) He was ruthless long before 9/11 with his own people and ran a dictatorship. He killed thousands of Kurds with chemical agents and tortured many people all the time. At no time did any one suggest intervention on the Iraq's people behalf.
3) when we invaded iraq we carpet bombed large cities killing thousands of non combantants but very little soilders. As a matter of fact very few Iraq enemy soilders have been killed in the total duration of the war, but about 16k civilians have lost their lives in the last two years.
4) Our occupation is not welcomed by the general population over there
on the flip side
1) their govement is being set up in a much more diplomatic way than before our invasion
2) with the culture of their country and the paradign before the USA arrived I don't think change would have been likely.
With those ideas I think the good that will come of it is a better goverment for their country but the bad is the damage caused by american bombs and the ill will that will be attached to it.
With the non finding of WMD and/or 9/11 terroists a hidden agenda in my mind has been revealed. American politics are looking at their ovesea assets of oil and I don't see pullout as an option unless the USA gets another place to put a permenant miltary base (we have miltary bases all over the world outside to the middle east and africa), in a place where we have a strong economic interest. So their is a good by-product of a better govement but that was not a motive for our invasion (as evidenced by our apathy during the kurd genocides), and will not be a factor in our current occupation.
1) Saddam was on good terms with the USA just a few years before the invasion.
2) He was ruthless long before 9/11 with his own people and ran a dictatorship. He killed thousands of Kurds with chemical agents and tortured many people all the time. At no time did any one suggest intervention on the Iraq's people behalf.
3) when we invaded iraq we carpet bombed large cities killing thousands of non combantants but very little soilders. As a matter of fact very few Iraq enemy soilders have been killed in the total duration of the war, but about 16k civilians have lost their lives in the last two years.
4) Our occupation is not welcomed by the general population over there
on the flip side
1) their govement is being set up in a much more diplomatic way than before our invasion
2) with the culture of their country and the paradign before the USA arrived I don't think change would have been likely.
With those ideas I think the good that will come of it is a better goverment for their country but the bad is the damage caused by american bombs and the ill will that will be attached to it.
With the non finding of WMD and/or 9/11 terroists a hidden agenda in my mind has been revealed. American politics are looking at their ovesea assets of oil and I don't see pullout as an option unless the USA gets another place to put a permenant miltary base (we have miltary bases all over the world outside to the middle east and africa), in a place where we have a strong economic interest. So their is a good by-product of a better govement but that was not a motive for our invasion (as evidenced by our apathy during the kurd genocides), and will not be a factor in our current occupation.
linwood
Well-Known Member
This war tears at me.
I understand and agree with Saws point .
I cannot watch the BBC video of Halabja three days after the chem attack and not believe something should have been done.
The problem is that nothing was done then and nothing was done to help the rebellion we began right after the first Iraq war.
We spit on those peoples hopes after we gave them those hopes.
Despicable.
I have a problem with the lies, I would probably not have a single problem if Bush came out and said..
"Saddam is a ******* who turtures and kills innocents to further his own evil power and we`re taking him out."
If there were no lies then there would be no reason to claim preemption.
It`s not like we had to worry about the rest of the world going along with it considering they didn`t even after we lied to them.
Whats the diff?
It embarrasses and shames me that my country has this great military power and we only use it for personal gain.
Darfur for instance, what theb hell are we doing about Darfur?
Nothing, do you know why?
Because there`s no oil in Darfur, there is no strategic military advancement in darfur.
I understand and agree with Saws point .
I cannot watch the BBC video of Halabja three days after the chem attack and not believe something should have been done.
The problem is that nothing was done then and nothing was done to help the rebellion we began right after the first Iraq war.
We spit on those peoples hopes after we gave them those hopes.
Despicable.
I have a problem with the lies, I would probably not have a single problem if Bush came out and said..
"Saddam is a ******* who turtures and kills innocents to further his own evil power and we`re taking him out."
If there were no lies then there would be no reason to claim preemption.
It`s not like we had to worry about the rest of the world going along with it considering they didn`t even after we lied to them.
Whats the diff?
It embarrasses and shames me that my country has this great military power and we only use it for personal gain.
Darfur for instance, what theb hell are we doing about Darfur?
Nothing, do you know why?
Because there`s no oil in Darfur, there is no strategic military advancement in darfur.
No*s
Captain Obvious
"You have given out too much Karma in the last 24 hours, try again later."
Sorry, Linwood. Darfur needs more mentioning...
EDIT:
That's what bothers me about Iraq. I'm not so sure that we were flat-out lied to, but I don't like the inaction in Darfur, and it is despicable what we did with raising then crashing hopes. It simply saddens me that those things happened.
Sorry, Linwood
. Darfur needs more mentioning...EDIT:
That's what bothers me about Iraq. I'm not so sure that we were flat-out lied to, but I don't like the inaction in Darfur, and it is despicable what we did with raising then crashing hopes. It simply saddens me that those things happened
.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
1) I don't know what you mean by "good terms". We have been in a state of War with Iraq since the first Gulf War (cease fire, no formal surrender ever given or ever signed) and have been enforcing the No Fly zones since then as well. From Saddam's statements, it would seem he has always hated us since we kept him from keeping Kuwait.robtex said:
2) He is bad dude, do doubt about that. I agree that no one ever did anything about him and probably should have, but you know what they say about hindsight. And I don't remember there ever being a strong sentiment from anyone saying that we should. Except for those Iraqis who had left and sought freedom.
3) The first part, I disagree with. The carpet bombing that was used, was done in northern Iraq against Iraqi soldiers that were in hillsides overlooking the area that the 101st Airborne dropped into. They were getting shelled pretty good, and the Iraqis had the high ground. Other than that, no carpet bombing took place in Iraq. B-52's have been used, but mostly for the deployment of cruise missiles. The only other carpet bombing that took place was in Afganistan, where we dropped a lot in order to get the bad guys to move out of a particular area that was difficult to get into. On your second part, I totally agree. Soldiers, dressed as civilians, where able to escape and have now been able to rear their ugly heads to continue to fight a guerilla war against us. But, we are slowly fixing this problem.
4) Incorrect. Kurds, for the most part, are happy to see us. Shi'ites, for the most part, are happy to see us. Sunni's pretty much hate us. They were the ruling class under Saddam and life was pretty good for them.
Like everyone else, it would have been best if we had the correct information prior to invasion. I think that it was the right thing to do, but our nation could have saved ourselves a lot of embarrasment, had we the right informaiton before we acted. But, Saddam didn't help himself either by giving the inspectors such a hard time. He pretty much acted like a guilty man.
http://www.newsaic.com/mwafrica.html
Here is a pretty good article about the US involvement in Darfur. I agree that more needs to be done, but I also think that it is a very difficult situation. Everyone seems to be bad, so who do we support?
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
^Nice post EEWRED.
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
I agree that the world is safer without Saddam in power. I worry that the war has created many more terrorists, or people who are willing to use those tactics, though.
I also extremely disagree with how the war is being run. I really wish I knew that people who were being sent overseas had enough armor.
I also extremely disagree with how the war is being run. I really wish I knew that people who were being sent overseas had enough armor.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
^Yes Feathers, but people like Kerry don't want to give them armor.
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/humor/kerrysucks3.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/humor/kerrysucks3.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Trance, what do you suggest we do in Iraq?
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
But if we leave, the terrorists would attack other civilians, and they might never stabilize.
I do agree with you that we should leave ASAP, but only after the Iraqi police force is sufficient enough to control themselves, as I see it now, it appears they are not quite up to that level.
I do agree with you that we should leave ASAP, but only after the Iraqi police force is sufficient enough to control themselves, as I see it now, it appears they are not quite up to that level.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Hmm...Leaving is not something I normally would propose but a quick thought is...Saw11_2000 said:
If there was no American military there the terrorists would have no legitimate targets.
The terrorists weren`t there before we got there, they came because of us.
If they continued to attack they would be attacking Iraqis and Iraqi governemnt institutions directly without the plausability that the US runs them.
They would be attacking the institutions the Iraqi people voted for and have agreed to.
In short..they would be attacking the Iraqi people.
This would not make for good PR in the Muslim world.
Just a thought.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
^Yes, but I think the only reason these terrorists surfaced is either because A) They are evil remnants of Saddam's regime. Or B) They would have normally been surpressed by Saddam's regime, since that threat is gone, they are surfacing.
I don't think it's making for good PR right now as we speak either, as long as you don't get your news from Al Jazeera.
I don't think it's making for good PR right now as we speak either, as long as you don't get your news from Al Jazeera.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Again, I need to bow out of this one, I do not understand the points you are trying to make. Perhaps someone who does can debate you.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
No, I don't think it was, and I did not support the invasion of Iraq.... and that's all I'm going to say about that.
As for what to do now... I'm not sure anyone knows that answer... which is really scary.
As for what to do now... I'm not sure anyone knows that answer... which is really scary.
M
Majikthise
Guest
All I will say is ,yes, It was justified.JMTC, If somebody sucker punches me ,and his buddy laughs ,he's gettin' one two.
M
Majikthise
Guest
As absurd as it might sound, fear and respect can go hand in hand.Fear can be a great motivator in making one consider ones actions.Some won't respond to anything else.