Was the U.S invasion of Iraq justified?

[vash]

A while ago I have heard that during the invasion of Iraq, the US military used a dozen tanks to surround the Iraqi oil department while sent no one to protect the museums, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructures. It is an indication of what was the priority for the invasion.

I have also checked some status on GDP, life expectations, etc. Everything has gone shitty since the invasion. If the invasion was for "freedom", then that's the freedom most people wouldn't want... Lower your income by over 60~70%? Live 20 years shorter? Have a unstable government who can't even control the security outside the capital city?

Some people also do not understand. Democracy might be a better form of government than dictatorship, but it isn't the same for different parts of the world. Democracy require a higher educated and higher moral population. In some parts of the world only someone with iron hands can control and stabilize a country. Place like Iraq and many Middle East countries are better off under a strong leadership (dictatorship). Without them, the whole country can become unstable and falling apart.

 

[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.

That too... Saddam was a friend of the US. The US government armed him to invade Iran. Even sold him some chemical weapons and short ranged surface to surface missiles all used on Iranians. It was also a big surprise to him that not long after the peace was made between Iraq and Iran, the US media all the sudden started to produce anti-Saddam propaganda.

Anyway, both Saddam and Gaddafi were made example of. We are the borg, resistance is futile.

 

[pwarbi]

With what's happening in the Middle East these days being firmly put at the feet of the US and the UK's decisions in the past, I think the question shouldn't be was it justified in doing what it did, but why was there no other countries at that time standing up to the allied forces and questioning what their intentions were at that time?

It's all very easy now for a country to say well I knew you shouldn't have done that, but I don't remember them saying anything back then.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

I firmly believe so. Iraq made the first move, and publicly humiliated the US in front of the whole world to see. Was their retaliation justified? It was their only choice. Peace was never an option after they bombed a monumental structure in US history. Was it monetarily justified? That I do not know. A lot of people's tax dollars were sent to create missiles and firearms for their soldiers, and let's face it, it gets tiring after a while. People are tired of funding a decade long war, and they are showing it right now.

 

[Zepplin]

Sorry, what did they bomb?

 

[chris007]

Good afternoon everyone.

I just might be the only one in this forum that openly admits that the invasion of Iraq was justified, so therefore I am obligated to explain my position.

It is widely and wrongly believed that the entire reason why the US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein was because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

There are four conditions under international law in which a country can be told its sovereignty is over.

1. Repeated aggression towards its neighbors
2. Fooling around with the WMD's under the non-proliferation treaty
3. Harboring gangsters
4. Genocide

And by 1990 Iraq had broken every one of them. Eventually this led to the decision to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was to support a "regime change." and was passed through the U.S. House of Representatives 360 - 38. And passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. This act was later used by George W. Bush and now we are having this discussion.

It should by now be worth mentioning what a world would be like if we decided not to invade iraq

- Kuwait would be part of Iraq and owned by Saddam.
- Saddam would have abolished the Arab (Muslim) League
- Saddam would have renewed his genocide of the Shiite and Kurd's.
- Perhaps I have not yet mentioned that Mr. Hussein was and still would be a wanted international war criminal.
- Qaddafi and his gang would have never turned over Libya's higher than anticipated stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

The evidence and justification for invading Iraq go on and on.

I think my core counter argument at this moment in time would point at the rise of ISIS to fill the power vacuum. To that I need to admit that the invasion was bungled, and not handled properly at all. The United States is greatly responsible for everything that has happened in Iraq since it was the United States that put Saddam's Baath party onto power back in 1968. Everyone needs to understand that we are responsible for everything that has happened to that country, and it is for that very reason we should not have left Iraq.

So now what? The situation is chao's what do we do now? And I think by now you can predict what I would do.

 

[Zepplin]

Good afternoon everyone.

I just might be the only one in this forum that openly admits that the invasion of Iraq was justified, so therefore I am obligated to explain my position.

It is widely and wrongly believed that the entire reason why the US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein was because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

There are four conditions under international law in which a country can be told its sovereignty is over.

1. Repeated aggression towards its neighbors
2. Fooling around with the WMD's under the non-proliferation treaty
3. Harboring gangsters
4. Genocide

And by 1990 Iraq had broken every one of them. Eventually this led to the decision to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was to support a "regime change." and was passed through the U.S. House of Representatives 360 - 38. And passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. This act was later used by George W. Bush and now we are having this discussion.

It should by now be worth mentioning what a world would be like if we decided not to invade iraq

- Kuwait would be part of Iraq and owned by Saddam.
- Saddam would have abolished the Arab (Muslim) League
- Saddam would have renewed his genocide of the Shiite and Kurd's.
- Perhaps I have not yet mentioned that Mr. Hussein was and still would be a wanted international war criminal.
- Qaddafi and his gang would have never turned over Libya's higher than anticipated stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

The evidence and justification for invading Iraq go on and on.

I think my core counter argument at this moment in time would point at the rise of ISIS to fill the power vacuum. To that I need to admit that the invasion was bungled, and not handled properly at all. The United States is greatly responsible for everything that has happened in Iraq since it was the United States that put Saddam's Baath party onto power back in 1968. Everyone needs to understand that we are responsible for everything that has happened to that country, and it is for that very reason we should not have left Iraq.

So now what? The situation is chao's what do we do now? And I think by now you can predict what I would do.

This is very thought provoking.
So let's say that the invasion/second gulf war didn't happen and that Saddam's regime had spread and Qaddafi still had power.

This is going to be the controversial bit:
Is our current situation better or worse than what it could have been?
Is ISIS as much as a threat to the West than what would have been?
Is ISIS more of a threat to the local populations than what it would have been?

I can see that ISIS is not as much of a threat to the West as what Saddam's regime could have been.....so I can see and understand why the US was eager for a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Scorpion]

Good afternoon everyone.

I just might be the only one in this forum that openly admits that the invasion of Iraq was justified, so therefore I am obligated to explain my position.

It is widely and wrongly believed that the entire reason why the US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein was because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

There are four conditions under international law in which a country can be told its sovereignty is over.

1. Repeated aggression towards its neighbors
2. Fooling around with the WMD's under the non-proliferation treaty
3. Harboring gangsters
4. Genocide

And by 1990 Iraq had broken every one of them. Eventually this led to the decision to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was to support a "regime change." and was passed through the U.S. House of Representatives 360 - 38. And passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. This act was later used by George W. Bush and now we are having this discussion.

It should by now be worth mentioning what a world would be like if we decided not to invade iraq

- Kuwait would be part of Iraq and owned by Saddam.
- Saddam would have abolished the Arab (Muslim) League
- Saddam would have renewed his genocide of the Shiite and Kurd's.
- Perhaps I have not yet mentioned that Mr. Hussein was and still would be a wanted international war criminal.
- Qaddafi and his gang would have never turned over Libya's higher than anticipated stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

The evidence and justification for invading Iraq go on and on.

I think my core counter argument at this moment in time would point at the rise of ISIS to fill the power vacuum. To that I need to admit that the invasion was bungled, and not handled properly at all. The United States is greatly responsible for everything that has happened in Iraq since it was the United States that put Saddam's Baath party onto power back in 1968. Everyone needs to understand that we are responsible for everything that has happened to that country, and it is for that very reason we should not have left Iraq.

So now what? The situation is chao's what do we do now? And I think by now you can predict what I would do.

The first rational and objective response to the topic so far, thumps up mate.

Now coming to your question on how to deal with the situation now I think the US should coordinate with the Kurds of Iraq and the Sunni factions in order to reconstruct a non sectarian government in Iraq that represent all Iraq people regardless of their religious background. Unfortunately the vacuum created due to the US invasion was filled by Iran the most sectarian and backward government on the face of the earth. You don't live in the ME otherwise you would understand the internal situation of Iraq and the slaughtering of the non Shia by the army of Iraq who takes orders from Iran. Both the current central government of Iraq and the Mullah regime of Iran are committing crimes against humanity just to change the demographic structure of Iraq. Yes Saddam did commit a mistake by invading Kuwait but the bigger mistake was removing him from power. At least during his time Iraq was prosperous and all Iraqis were living in peace while now Iraqis are killing Iraqis for power.

 

[chris007]

The first rational and objective response to the topic so far, thumps up mate.

Now coming to your question on how to deal with the situation now I think the US should coordinate with the Kurds of Iraq and the Sunni factions in order to reconstruct a non sectarian government in Iraq that represent all Iraq people regardless of their religious background. Unfortunately the vacuum created due to the US invasion was filled by Iran the most sectarian and backward government on the face of the earth. You don't live in the ME otherwise you would understand the internal situation of Iraq and the slaughtering of the non Shia by the army of Iraq who takes orders from Iran. Both the current central government of Iraq and the Mullah regime of Iran are committing crimes against humanity just to change the demographic structure of Iraq. Yes Saddam did commit a mistake by invading Kuwait but the bigger mistake was removing him from power. At least during his time Iraq was prosperous and all Iraqis were living in peace while now Iraqis are killing Iraqis for power.

Hello everyone. I hope my reply will address everyone that responded to my previous post.

We all agree that the current situation is bleak at best, and will probably get worse before it gets better. I also completely agree that the US currently needs to coordinate with the Kurds and other factions that are fighting ISIS. It is my understanding that one of the reasons why the US has not been more involved with aiding the Kurds is because the US wants Turkey more involved with the fight against ISIS and Turkey cannot stop attacking Kurdish PKK positions.

The area we do not agree upon is based on the question of if we should have left Saddam in power or not?

This question seems as if it has a murky gray area because we will never know, but perhaps I can make a few points about Saddam's past that can address how we could have predicted his future behavior.

- 1st point.
Part of the cease-fire agreement after the 1st Gulf war that would allow Saddam to remain in power was to allow UNSCOM inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction.

Bill Clinton said in 1998 "Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their (UNSCOM) ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits..."

Later in Clinton's speech he makes a great point.

"let's imagine the future. What if he (Saddam) fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he (Saddam) will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal..." - President Clinton 1998

- 2nd point.
Even though no WMD were not found in Iraq, the access to them was very real. The US and European intelligence knew about a Network that existed for almost two decades which provided nuclear technology, expertise, and designs to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly other countries. It was not until Qaddafi's stockpiles were obtained that the Network would later unfold and lead to the arrest and public confession of Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in 2004. A.Q. Khan would confirm the existence of a global proliferation network now known as the A.Q. Khan network.

- 3rd point
Even though I have never visited the Middle East. I do question the quality of life in Iraq under the rule of Saddam. Saddam nearly collapsed the economy after 8 years of war with Iran which is what drove Saddam to take Kuwait in the first place. Saddam was a strict dictator and it was illegal to own a satellite dish at that time. If you opposed Saddam it would mean certain death for you and your entire family, and not a fast death either.

- Since Saddam was ousted there are at least 25 independent news papers circulating that are listed in Wikipedia.
- Iraq holds regular elections
- I mentioned this before, but we rescued a huge majority of the Kurdish and Shi'ite people from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide.

- 4th and final point
Saddam's continued failure to ever comply with any treaty, makes it impossible to imagine how the Arab spring would have played out if an oil-rich and heavily armed nation with a track record of intervention with its neighbors' affairs, and a history of repression against its own civilians, were still the private property of a sadistic crime family.

Many of these points have drifted into the abyss of the US pubic's mind of this war. One of the core arguments against these points was made popular by President Obama by questioning "why would we invade without an exit strategy?"

I find objection to this argument, simply because there never was a time in history when we or anyone else involved themselves in combat, with any certain advance knowledge about a timeline and duration for hostilities.

 

[Zepplin]

Hello everyone. I hope my reply will address everyone that responded to my previous post.

We all agree that the current situation is bleak at best, and will probably get worse before it gets better. I also completely agree that the US currently needs to coordinate with the Kurds and other factions that are fighting ISIS. It is my understanding that one of the reasons why the US has not been more involved with aiding the Kurds is because the US wants Turkey more involved with the fight against ISIS and Turkey cannot stop attacking Kurdish PKK positions.

The area we do not agree upon is based on the question of if we should have left Saddam in power or not?

This question seems as if it has a murky gray area because we will never know, but perhaps I can make a few points about Saddam's past that can address how we could have predicted his future behavior.

- 1st point.
Part of the cease-fire agreement after the 1st Gulf war that would allow Saddam to remain in power was to allow UNSCOM inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction.

Bill Clinton said in 1998 "Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their (UNSCOM) ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits..."

Later in Clinton's speech he makes a great point.

"let's imagine the future. What if he (Saddam) fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he (Saddam) will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal..." - President Clinton 1998

- 2nd point.
Even though no WMD were not found in Iraq, the access to them was very real. The US and European intelligence knew about a Network that existed for almost two decades which provided nuclear technology, expertise, and designs to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly other countries. It was not until Qaddafi's stockpiles were obtained that the Network would later unfold and lead to the arrest and public confession of Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in 2004. A.Q. Khan would confirm the existence of a global proliferation network now known as the A.Q. Khan network.

- 3rd point
Even though I have never visited the Middle East. I do question the quality of life in Iraq under the rule of Saddam. Saddam nearly collapsed the economy after 8 years of war with Iran which is what drove Saddam to take Kuwait in the first place. Saddam was a strict dictator and it was illegal to own a satellite dish at that time. If you opposed Saddam it would mean certain death for you and your entire family, and not a fast death either.

- Since Saddam was ousted there are at least 25 independent news papers circulating that are listed in Wikipedia.
- Iraq holds regular elections
- I mentioned this before, but we rescued a huge majority of the Kurdish and Shi'ite people from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide.

- 4th and final point
Saddam's continued failure to ever comply with any treaty, makes it impossible to imagine how the Arab spring would have played out if an oil-rich and heavily armed nation with a track record of intervention with its neighbors' affairs, and a history of repression against its own civilians, were still the private property of a sadistic crime family.

Many of these points have drifted into the abyss of the US pubic's mind of this war. One of the core arguments against these points was made popular by President Obama by questioning "why would we invade without an exit strategy?"

I find objection to this argument, simply because there never was a time in history when we or anyone else involved themselves in combat, with any certain advance knowledge about a timeline and duration for hostilities.

Your points a clear, backed up and put forward in a perfect way.
I wish every post (including mine) was as good as yours.
May I ask, do you have a background in presentation or writing?

A controversal thing I'd add: ISIS should be represented at any talks or negotiations. If only to show them up using logic and not bombs

 

[chris007]

Your points a clear, backed up and put forward in a perfect way.
I wish every post (including mine) was as good as yours.
May I ask, do you have a background in presentation or writing?

A controversal thing I'd add: ISIS should be represented at any talks or negotiations. If only to show them up using logic and not bombs

Thanks for the kind words Mr. Zepplin. I try not to jabber too long, but it this is a topic that is very detailed and does not have a simple answer to it. I try to flesh out the reasons without making it seem as if I am a warmonger.

My only background in writing is based from graduating at a writing intensive liberal arts school in Milwaukee known as MIAD.

enjoy your weekend everyone.

 

[pwarbi]

I think the word 'warmonger' often gets used by the Liberal lefties that believe everything can be solved by hugging each other or by planting a tree.

Anybody who dares say that any war is justified is quickly described as a warmonger no matter how well an argument is put forward and backed up with facts.

 

[vash]

With what's happening in the Middle East these days being firmly put at the feet of the US and the UK's decisions in the past, I think the question shouldn't be was it justified in doing what it did, but why was there no other countries at that time standing up to the allied forces and questioning what their intentions were at that time?

It's all very easy now for a country to say well I knew you shouldn't have done that, but I don't remember them saying anything back then.

You are wrong.
The US government first tried to get the approval of UN security council for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so it would look more legit. It was denied. There you go, that was them "saying something" against it. In fact most countries around the world voted against it.

Then the US ignored the UN and went ahead with NATO instead. So it was the proof that the invasion was already planned, and the vote in UN was just a show trying to make it "legit". When it was failed, the invasion took place anyway.

 

[pwarbi]

Well if that's is the case, then there's no point in having an organization like the UN then is there if countries are going to just do what they want anyway?

Didn't the UN also say that the US invasion of Grenada unlawful aswell but that still went ahead? It kind of makes a mockery of if it was unlawful or not because countries might say something but then just let it happen anyway.

 

[remnant]

The invasion of Iraq was a predetermined course of action irrespective of the consequences or justification for it. A more compliant regime was needed in Baghdad courtesy of the petrodollars. No weapons of mass destruction were found. It also had a domino effect of creating instability which was the purported aim of the war in the first place. This galvanized the radical Arab street resulting in the formation of ISIS. More civilians and soldiers after the war than during the war. The alternative to such intractable conflicts is to forge homegrown opposition groups after providing them with training in neighbouring countries.