Was the war justified?

[retrorich]

Was the war justified?

Absolutely not. The US had no valid reason for invading Iraq. The war has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars and has accomplished absolutely nothing. The world is less secure than it was before the war, and international hatred of the the US has escalated. The war will go down in history as a huge mistake, and George W. Bush will be recognized as the worst president in US history.

 

[Melody]

Was the war justified?

Absolutely not. The US had no valid reason for invading Iraq. The war has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars and has accomplished absolutely nothing. The world is less secure than it was before the war, and international hatred of the the US has escalated. The war will down in history as a huge mistake, and George W. Bush will be recognized as the worst president in US history.

Frubals on your head....

 

[Valjean]

All I will say is ,yes, It was justified.JMTC, If somebody sucker punches me ,and his buddy laughs ,he's gettin' one two.

I don't understand your point, Majik. Are you referring to the WTC attacks? Iraq had nothing to do with that. Most of those terrorists were Saudis.

Iraq was toothless. The CIA knew it. The weapons inspectors knew it. Even the Mossad knew it. All of Iraq's neighbors hated Saddam, but not one of them feared him. Only the USA tried to make the case that Iraq was a threat.

The US wanted a secure middle eastern military base and access to Iraq's oil. WMD was a ruse.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Well, atleast oil prices dropped. Oh that's right, no they didn't.
Trans is right, once we leave civil war is going to break out, so we might as well save some of our lives and money and pull out. But we wont, and once we do and war starts there, we will probably go back in to waste more money and lives.

 

[BUDDY]

The war has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars and has accomplished absolutely nothing. The world is less secure than it was before the war, and international hatred of the the US has escalated. The war will go down in history as a huge mistake, and George W. Bush will be recognized as the worst president in US history.

Opinion, opinion and who gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks. But, that's just me. I feel safer, Sadam and his regime are through, the Iraqis are being given a chance to govern them selves and if the mark of a man is decided on how popular he is in the world, then I am glad the world doesn't know me.

 

[jamaesi]

Opinion, opinion and who gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

So it's alright to blow off world and then berate them (freedom fries, anyone?) for not helping us?
We need cooperation in times like this, and we get that by not acting like the schoolyard bully.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Opinion, opinion and who gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks. But, that's just me. I feel safer, Sadam and his regime are through, the Iraqis are being given a chance to govern them selves and if the mark of a man is decided on how popular he is in the world, then I am glad the world doesn't know me.

Why do you feel safer? The only people Saddam terrorized were Iraqis.
America seems to feel like it is the supreme ruler of the world: it answers to no one, yet it expects everyone to answer to itself. (Well, atleast the Bush administration)

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well you can't claim that the terrorist are working together with Saddam and that he could give his hidden WMD to those terrorist, if you are now claiming that he repressed those terrorists, and now he is gone they can come out and do their thing..

No one is trying to claim that. It seems as though we've actually been fighting two wars--one against Saddam, and one against the terrorists.

Going after Osama and waging our "War on Terror" can obviously be justified, as we were personally affected by it in the terrible events of 9/11.

The controversy and disagreement, (both from our own citizens and other countries), comes in with the addition of Saddam to our hit-list.

Personally, I'm a bit on the fence at this point. Part of me wishes that we could return to the sweet neutrality we had before WWI, and that's been working so well for Sweeden and Canada all of these years. World Powers always have targets on their backs, so perhaps neutrality isn't entirely realistic for us, but I think we should give it a shot anyhow.

On the other hand, given that we ARE a world power, do we, or do we not have the responsibility to use our power to help oppressed peoples? It's the oldest moral question in the book--do you stand up for the geek who's being bullied for his lunch money, or do you look away and walk on? We have organizations that are supposed to watch out for this sort of thing, such as the UN, ....but it doesn't seem to be working. We still have people who are being oppressed all over the world. It's enough to make me join the Peace Corps right now....At the very least, SOMETHING needs to be done about oppressive regimes around the world, (and by oppressive, I mean situations where innocent people are being killed first and foremost....trying to nail down a list of basic human rights that the entire world has to adhere to would be much more difficult to justify). Whether military action is a proper "something" or not is obvioulsy highly debateable, but at least it seems to get results.

 

[scitsofreaky]

The war on terror is the most futile war ever conceived of (so I'm not surprise it was Bush that started it), you can't fight a concept/state of mind. If anything, the war on terror is strengthening the resolve of the most dangerous terrorists.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Please remember to steer clear of personal attacks, everyone. I know political discussions can be a bit heated, but remember that it's the person's opinion that you're arguing with, not the person themself. (And people who are being argued with, please remember that, as well! )

 

[Saw11_2000]

Well, You might wanna read that part of the thread again then. I think you just called Saw11_2000 a "No one".

2 wars.. How is that possible.. Congress hasn't declared war, and only given some power to the executive branch to go after terorists. Where did congress just add Iraq to the list?

How can Bush use the US armed forces as his private lynch/henchman to fight his own little wars like the kings of the past in Europe?

Obviously not, unless at last proof is given that doens't rely of faith in a bunch of proven liers to have told the truth about that part. And that was in the US property the moment they declared a World WIde hunt for people that either Dead or Alive, it wouldn't matter according to the texas lone shooter. To at a certain moment in time to be changed in " Where OBL is? I don't know, and he isn't much of a priority for us. -- GW Bush 2 years into the war on terrorism <Not verbatim.> )

Well according to the fact, you are the world power (Not meaning the brightest flames in the furnace, but the best weapons money can supply .) that had at least hand in half of all the atrocities, to the people in the world during the cold war if only because you supported the governments as clients and supported their conduct among their populations. Like it or not.

Since when did I ever claim that WMDs were bought from Saddam, they don't have any.
However, they do have things that are in direct violations of UN rules that were applied upon them.

Of course, Saddam's government doesn't like the U.S., he could have harbored terrorists, sold arms to terrorists, and the like.

You can support terrorism without selling WMDs to terrorists.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Since when did I ever claim that WMDs were bought from Saddam, they don't have any.
However, they do have things that are in direct violations of UN rules that were opposed upon them.

Of course, Saddam's government doesn't like the U.S., he could have harbored terrorists, sold arms to terrorists, and the like.

You can support terrorism without selling WMDs terrorists.

I could be wrong, but I know my only issue with WMDs is that the threat of them was used to convince the American people and possibly other nations that this was a good reason for 'pre-emptively' attacking another country. I also don't like that the government thinks that the people are going to suddenly forget that that's why it was claiming we were going to war. "It's to fight terrorism," the reason suddenly becomes. Terrorism is an idea and it's a frame of mind. While it may be disgusting and horrible, it's not a physical thing that you can simply wipe out. "Fighting terrorism" also gives those in power free reign to attack those countries they claim are harboring or support terrorists, and takes attention away from countries that could actually use our help.

 

[linwood]

You can support terrorism without selling WMDs terrorists.

The thing is that he didn`t.
At least he didn`t support the terorists we are at war with.

AlQueda exists to "free" the Muslim people of secular oppression.
Bin Laden promots the overthrow of those governments.

Saddam Hussien was the leader of one of those governments.

Bin Laden and Hussien were and are in a direct conflict of ideology.

Those of us who had some knowledge of these two entities before the Iraqi war were confused and perplexed at the assertion they were working together.

We immediately knew the grave mistake made when the US invaded Iraq on such an obviously false premise.

The rest of the ignorant masses bought it hook line and sinker.
Most remain in willful ignorance even after the falsity has been thoroughly exposed.

Hussien had a governmental department the sole purpose of which was to make sure these terrorists didn`t cross into Iraqs borders.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I could be wrong, but I know my only issue with WMDs is that the threat of them was used to convince the American people and possibly other nations that this was a good reason for 'pre-emptively' attacking another country. I also don't like that the government thinks that the people are going to suddenly forget that that's why it was claiming we were going to war. "It's to fight terrorism," the reason suddenly becomes. Terrorism is an idea and it's a frame of mind. While it may be disgusting and horrible, it's not a physical thing that you can simply wipe out. "Fighting terrorism" also gives those in power free reign to attack those countries they claim are harboring or support terrorists, and takes attention away from countries that could actually use our help.

Let me just say that in the beginning when we were just starting the war and we were told that they had WMDs, I didn't care.

I believe that he is a dangerous psychopath that needed to be ousted regardless of whether or not he had WMDs.

He did have the potential to associate with terrorists, obviously he is more anti-american than he is pro-american, which is the same mentality as the terrorists.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Saw11_2000]

You can support terrorism without selling WMDs terrorists.

The thing is that he didn`t.
At least he didn`t support the terorists we are at war with.

AlQueda exists to "free" the Muslim people of secular oppression.
Bin Laden promots the overthrow of those governments.

Saddam Hussien was the leader of one of those governments.

Bin Laden and Hussien were and are in a direct conflict of ideology.

Those of us who had some knowledge of these two entities before the Iraqi war were confused and perplexed at the assertion they were working together.

We immediately knew the grave mistake made when the US invaded Iraq on such an obviously false premise.

The rest of the ignorant masses bought it hook line and sinker.
Most remain in willful ignorance even after the falsity has been thoroughly exposed.

Hussien had a governmental department the sole purpose of which was to make sure these terrorists didn`t cross into Iraqs borders.

Notice I said the words "could" and "can". I was not implying that he was supporting terrorism.

I do believe he was a threat to the security of the United States, whether or not it was imminent, it doesn't really matter IMO, and I believe we are safer with him gone.

The fact is that we may never know if him and bin Laden had a little pact together. Saddam could have provided Osama with chemical weapons (which my friend Dr. Anthrax came up with), and simply not made any receipts that we can trace back.

Again, I believe we are safer with him gone than with him here.

 

[linwood]

I do believe he was a threat to the security of the United States, whether or not it was imminent, it doesn't really matter IMO, and I believe we are safer with him gone.

No disagreement here.


The fact is that we may never know if him and bin Laden had a little pact together. Saddam could have provided Osama with chemical weapons (which my friend Dr. Anthrax came up with), and simply not made any receipts that we can trace back.

No we may never know if we don`t think about it.
Saddam was just as likely to help BinLaden militarily as we are likely to help BinLaden militarily.

What you don`t understand is that to BinLaden the only difference in Saddams Iraq and the USA is size.

We are both "Satan"

In fact Bin Laden may very well have held Saddam in higher contempt because he directly ruled over Muslims

Saddam making a pact with BinLaden for military support would be the equivelent of Saddam making a pact with Irans Khomeni for military support.

It was a lie, and it wasn`t even a good one.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I do believe he was a threat to the security of the United States, whether or not it was imminent, it doesn't really matter IMO, and I believe we are safer with him gone.

No disagreement here.
Anthrax came up with), and simply not made any receipts that we can trace back.

No we may never know if we don`t think about it.
Saddam was just as likely to help BinLaden militarily as we are likely to help BinLaden militarily.

What you don`t understand is that to BinLaden the only difference in Saddams Iraq and the USA is size.

We are both "Satan"

In fact Bin Laden may very well have held Saddam in higher contempt because he directly ruled over Muslims

Saddam making a pact with BinLaden for military support would be the equivelent of Saddam making a pact with Irans Khomeni for military support.

It was a lie, and it wasn`t even a good one.

Alright linwood, but still it is uncertain if he ever supported Al Quaida or bin Laden.
If you can offer me proof by a non-biased site that indeed there was no link and the U.S. government admits that, I will change my view on this possibility, but for now, I think anything is possible with him.

Personally, I think all that matters is that we're safer that he's gone.

Now, I can understand not supporting the war because you thought they had WMDs by Bush's lies, hell if that was the reason I supported it, I would be PISSED, but since I supported it simply to oust a psychopath mentally unstable freak, I was really not that angered when I learned they had no WMDs.

The fact is that we may never know if him and bin Laden had a little pact together. Saddam could have provided Osama with chemical weapons (which my friend Dr.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We attacked the Iraquis ONLY because we missed catching Osama. The entire debacle was to save face for someone's re-election. They did exactly what they accused Clinton of, used a war to cover their inadequacies. How sad for us.

 

[Saw11_2000]

We didn't miss looking for bin Laden, we just haven't found him.

If Bush REALLY REALLY wanted to impress people, who would have found bin Laden, so I think if he knew where he was, he would have gotten him.

I think we just haven't found him yet, the world is quite a large place.

There are 6 Billion (6,000,000,000) people in the world, one is Osama bin Laden, eventually we will get him.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If Bush REALLY REALLY wanted to impress people, who would have found bin Laden

You mean, if the man were marginally competent and was TRYING to find Osama. The man is all about photo ops... like landing a jet on a carrier. He was only trying to sell us his second term and way too many people fell for his deception.