Was the U.S invasion of Iraq justified?

[Scorpion]

The U.S invasion of Iraq under the pretext of Saddam possession of WMD has led to the destruction of Iraq as whole; its social, economic, political structure. The U.S with the help of Iran overthrown Saddam regime and installed a paralyzed government that further destroyed Iraq. Was the invasion justified? No and the reason is that there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD. Second, the UN refused to pass a resolution in favour of the U.S military operation. However, the U.S went on with the plan and resulted to what you see today a total havoc in the Middle East. Instead of collaborating with ME countries to fixe when it has ruined, It sat the current monster of ISIS out of prison and here he is slaughtering every human being. Is the U.S deliberately trying to destabilize the ME?

 

[Falcon29]

Of course it was deliberate, US is not surprised or regretful of the consequences of the war on Iraq. The people planning everything are looking far ahead. The ultimate goal is to strip Sunni's of any hold unto the ME. They want to replace it with Shia/Kurdish control. I'm not sure why, maybe some people are religiously driven. Of course this doesn't represent your average American's views who has no clue what is going. Most people around the world have no clue what's going on. Really only Sunni Muslims can realize there is some agenda against them.

And here we have this:

Intelligence officials: IS determined to strike US this year - Israel News, Ynetnews

....

Seems like they will allow attack to happen. I'm not sure what they are up to. It's obvious they want to see Saudi Arabia collapse. Iranians are in on it. Don't believe any of the nonsense gibberish Iranians spout about being anti-American or 'confronting US'. Iran is playing a game here and they are laughing at all Arab Sunni's who think US has tension with Iran. Iran's rhetoric is never dealt with, on contrary, US/Israel respond with rhetoric to give Arabs impression that they are against each other. That's absolutely all an act. Iranians(persians), Israeli's and Christians are all anti-Muslim and hence they want to topple Islam by going on all out war against Sunni Islams and most importantly getting Mecca out of Sunni hands. This doesn't mean it's religiously motivated, it's just that people see 'Muslims' as the other.

Arabs won't notice it until things get really bad. And even then, some Arabs will side with Iran, Israel and whomever else.

 

[UAE]

@ipm_zipedia what is your take on this?

 

[ipm_zipedia]

@ipm_zipedia what is your take on this?

I don't want to speak for all Americans especially because I am not a veteran. There are a LOT of veterans that have a personal connection this war that I'm around every day. They've had people die in it and some of them have depending viewpoints. I've known crazy great-uncles and various other relatives in the family who have had fun in war. I know I have a family friend who enjoyed clearing the tunnels of Vietnam, with just a pistol and flashlight in hand.

I don't condone nor do I deny the justifications of this war. There is a lot of influence behind it's occurrence, a lot of powers in play, and it's really a grey area. I understand that the Middle East is a power vacuum, and that foreign civilian lives have been saved by misplacing these dictators. But there is also a lot of death upon the same citizens likely caused collaterally, too. And indeed, for American soldiers as well. I know there are mixed reports. Chemical weapons were found, but they wouldn't qualify as a WMD in my eyes.

We shouldn't have gone there, but at the same time, I'm not the kind of person who lives my daily life comfortable with the fact that there are still dictatorships and institutionalized suffering in these kinds of nations. I know that in countries like Afghanistan, it is considered normal to sexualize and rape young boys. The Middle East is a hard problem, and there is no easy solutions. There is no good or bad, only what is best for the human condition.

 

[Corzhens]

I am against that invasion of Iraq. And although Saddam Hussein was projected by the Western Media as a monster, I believe the reports are not really that accurate. In other words, US media was exaggerated in their reporting to build up opposition against Saddam. And they were successful on that. Eventually Saddam was cornered and executed leaving Iraq to the fateful hands of the rebels which the US army lost control of. The damages to the cultural heritage of Iraq is unimaginable.

 

[silentwarfare]

The invasion and attack on Saddam was unnecessary and deliberate for alterior reasons.

We armed them during the 80's under the Reagan Administration and gave them all of the equipment that was used to kill US soldiers just 10 years later. If we had not done that, they would not have had the means to go to war with us and would have either surrendered or tried alternative means that would not have cost as many lives as it did.

Saddam kept more stability in that region than any other leader of their country before him even though he did a lot of things people considered to be bad, he did a heck of a lot more that was good for them and the people have confessed that now and said they were happier when Saddam was in control and more free than they are today after the US took control of the region.

One thing that Saddam, Gaddafi, and others the US have conquered is the fact that they are all not using the US monetary and banking systems, and were not obligated to do business with or meet the needs or demands of the US gov. When they refused to accept dollars for oil, that's when all of this turned into a mess and the intentional effort to destabilize the country and get control of it ensued which cost more than it could ever be worth to us today.

 

[explorerx7]

There was no justification for the Invasion of Iraq. Sadam was accused of having deadly gasses which were given to him by his accusers to fight against the Kurds, who were backed by Iran. None of these deadly substances were ever found. The country is now much worse that it was when Sadam was in control, its infrastructure has been greatly compromised and the governance structure is less than desired, therefore, Sadam being gone has not benefited the country in a positive way.

 

[fcuco]

I'm not sure what they are up to. It's obvious they want to see Saudi Arabia collapse

I highly doubt that, Saudi Arabia has been one of the main pillars of the petrodollar system since 1973, there is no garantee that a new regime in Saudi Arabia will continue to demand US dollars for oil thus artificially inflating the demand of US dollars and making the dollar the de facto currency for international reserves. The US will tolerate any kind of regime in Saudi Arabia as long as they only take dollars for oil

 

[vash]

The invasion and attack on Saddam was unnecessary and deliberate for alterior reasons.

We armed them during the 80's under the Reagan Administration and gave them all of the equipment that was used to kill US soldiers just 10 years later. If we had not done that, they would not have had the means to go to war with us and would have either surrendered or tried alternative means that would not have cost as many lives as it did.

Saddam kept more stability in that region than any other leader of their country before him even though he did a lot of things people considered to be bad, he did a heck of a lot more that was good for them and the people have confessed that now and said they were happier when Saddam was in control and more free than they are today after the US took control of the region.

One thing that Saddam, Gaddafi, and others the US have conquered is the fact that they are all not using the US monetary and banking systems, and were not obligated to do business with or meet the needs or demands of the US gov. When they refused to accept dollars for oil, that's when all of this turned into a mess and the intentional effort to destabilize the country and get control of it ensued which cost more than it could ever be worth to us today.

From what I have heard, Saddam wanted to ditch USD for oil trade. As for Gaddaffi, he wanted a gold standard.
Both died for it.

While both of them were dictators, both countries were much better off before their fall. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa with tons of social benefits. Now it is in ruins, and not even personal safety can be guaranteed.
Iraq was also a middle income country under Saddam. Now it is one of the sh1t holes.

I do not believe in foreign intervention. It just opens up for excuses of invasion by another country under the name of ... whatever the invaders see fit.

 

[Jason76]

From the evidence given, the Bush regime had a good reason to go in. However, it could debated that they wanted to go in, and the WMD stuff simply gave them a good excuse. Anyhow, in the end, the evidence was proven wrong.

I suppose it was kind of like the Vietnam War. Based on the evidence of the domino theory, the US leadership felt going in was the best move. Nonetheless, because South Vietnam refused to back land reform, something South Korea did do, the rural South Vietnamese backed the enemy.

 

[vash]

From the evidence given, the Bush regime had a good reason to go in. However, it could debated that they wanted to go in, and the WMD stuff simply gave them a good excuse. Anyhow, in the end, the evidence was proven wrong.

I suppose it was kind of like the Vietnam War. Based on the evidence of the domino theory, the US leadership felt going in was the best move. Nonetheless, because South Vietnam refused to back land reform, something South Korea did do, the rural South Vietnamese backed the enemy.

It was already in declassified files that the cause for Vietnam war was also a manufactured lie. The original cause was some North Vietnamese boats attacked US warships. It never happened.

Like I said, all foreign intervention should be illegal. Even if some real incidents took place, it shouldn't become excuse for full scale military intervention or it will look like manufactured even if it was indeed real.

 

[davidjon]

The whole point of the Iraq invasion was to destabilize the region to allow the formation of a "Greater Israel". The "Arab Strongmen", like Iraq's Hussein, Egypt's Mubarak, Libya's Gaddafi and Syria's Assad all need to go as well. Assad still stands, which is why we see "coalition" pressure to destroy him too.

The whole of America's Middle East policy is conducted to the benefit of Israel. If you still don't know this, I can't really help you.

 

[pwarbi]

If the US was justified or not to go into Iraq when it did is always going to be a tough question to answer.

As the saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we'd have known back then what we know now, then I don't think the US would have acted the way it did. That doesn't mean though that it acted unlawfully at the time, as I think back then people believed it was for the greater good.

 

[Zepplin]

There are two parts to this:

1. If the allies really believed that Iraq posed a threat with WMDs and had credible proof that they existed, it was justified

2. The fact that no proof now exists kind of makes it unjustified, but it's all down to if the original action was performed with said belief of WMDs.

If it was the other way and they had WMDs yet we did nothing, there would be uproar.

Legally - No WMDs - shouldn't have gone to war
Morally - If the locals benefited and the decision was based on accurate advice - should've gone to war

 

[cassandra]

The invasion of Iraq was not justified in any shape form or fashion. To start a war and justify it by saying we have to get the terrorists and stop them from terrorizing our country when we had no clue who indeed the actual terrorist is to begin with is asinine. Being an Iraq War Veteran and having been deployed to Iraq for 15 months when tours were extended , I can personally say that it was not justified because there was no such thing as Operation Iraq FREEDOM. We were merely sustaining ourselves and gave absolutely NO AID to the locals. As a driver, I would see kids alongside the road with their hands clenched in the air asking for water. Of course I was not able to give them anything, eve when we would rest and take a code yellow on the side of the road. I am sure none of you knew that the lives of the Iraqi's were far worse when we got there than when Hussein was in power. They had unlimited amount of power and water in most areas but as soon as we came, that was no longer the case. At best, they'd have many an hour or two electricity and small amounts of water throughout the week that had to be rationed heavily. All I'm saying is that we invaded Iraq under the guise of terrorism and giving them freedom , yet none of that happened or helped anything. The state out country is in right now is a direct example of this.