The War in Iraq & Why it Justifed....what do you think?

Question

G.W. Bush went to war against Saddam because he said they had WMD. As did over 160 scientist fleeing Iraq and the nations of Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Israel, Kuwait, Turkey, France, Germany and many others ALL said they had them or were working very hard to obtain nucular capabilities with the ability to launch them across their borders. Given the track record of Saddam who murdered his own people at will...are there any serious person that believes that getting rid of this regrime hasn't made this a safer world. It seems to me that the dissentors of this war against terror are simply polictically motivated. I remember these same people angry at Bush 41 for not going into Iraq and finishing the job in the first Gulf War.

If anyone would like to comment...I will respond within minutes...please no trash talking, if you have a serious view...I respond

Smack, I notice you didn't give your sources for your almost "James Bond" conspiracy theories. Would you please tell me where your information comes from?

Answer 1

Dear Just Me,

You make a very valid point. But the main problem is this: if the honest objective really was to reduce the threat level to the world and promote democracy, then many other countries should have taken precedence over Iraq in the "regime change" programme.

North Korea is far more brutal a regime, for instance - it has hundreds of thousands of people imprisoned in concentration camps (including women and children) and has starved its population for decades. Close to 2 million people are thought to have died as a result of an irresponsible economic policy that grants what little food there is to the armed forces. North Korea not only has weapons of mass destruction but has test-fired them several times since 1998, and has threatened repeatedly to use them against Japan and South Korea. It is also far more overtly hostile to the US than Iraq ever was.

Pakistan is also a far better candidate than Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is already a proven nuclear power, and it using its weapons against neighbouring India (over simmering tensions in Kashmir) is always going to remain a possibility. Pakistan has also been a confirmed hotbed of Islamic terrorism for decades, though its government's involvement is not definite. China too could be a good candidate. Like Pakistan, it is a dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which it has threatened to use against Taiwan, a long-standing US ally.

Finally, what about Saudi Arabia? It is after all the largest single state-sponsor behind 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden's country of birth. The Saudi Arabian government officially espouses the most fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, and it is in all respects a repressive and backward theocracy. All places of business are gender-segregated and women are neither allowed to vote nor drive. The country's enormous oil-generated wealth goes to Saudi Arabia's extremely corrupt royal family, while the rest of its population lives in squalour in destitution. Political opponents are gagged and jailed. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Saudi Arabia has a far greater influence over global Islam than Iraq has ever had.

There is no question that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that his removal is, in absolute terms, a good thing. But few things are absolute, especially in international relations, and the question is whether the enormous price to pay for his overthrow was acceptable. Because other far more malevolent regimes were left undisturbed while Iraq was invaded, no one believes Bush's rationale in going to war (the various intelligence blunders and untruths have not helped either), and therefore this has damaged American credibility and moral authority in the world more than any other event in the past few decades. America's allies have been alienated and its enemies emboldened. This is going to make cooperation and diplomacy in the world very difficult for years to come.

Whereas there was previously no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (in America this would be the equivalent of an alliance between Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean), now there definitely is - Al Qaeda has taken full advantage of the chaos and violence brought about by Saddam's removal to radicalise Muslims all over the world and stoke up a brutal civil war in Iraq. Happy that the US has its hands full in Iraq, Iran has also been rubbing its hands and rattling its sabres again.

On the whole, all of that means that in practical terms, the invasion of Iraq has made the world much more unsafe than before. Saddam was of course a horrid dictator - but the unfortunate truth is that there are many such shady characters around, and very careful thought should be taken before trying to unseat one of them. Invading a country by force of arms is a deadly serious business which will always involve an infringement of international good practice (our system, after all, rests upon the premise that countries do not invade each other), as well as result in violence and death, so one should first wonder if the game is worth the candle.

My view is that at the very least, if an invasion had to occur at all, then Saudi Arabia or North Korea would have made far more rational and worthwhile targets. Saddam was bad but he was not worth this enormous price in human lives and huge blow to American credibility. Because his main priority was to stay in power, he actually had no choice but to be very careful not to antagonise the US too much, and his brutal rule (much like Tito's in former Yugoslavia) had at least the poisoned advantage of keeping peace and order between Iraq's divided ethnic and religious groups.

Having said that, I do believe we should stay the course now. This is going to be a long and painful conflict but there is no other choice. Leaving now would leave Iraq into a bloody civil war and at the mercy of Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria. The threat level to the West would spiral beyond anything we've previously experienced. Also, US credibility would take a fatal blow - after all, no one forced the US to go in there and unseat Saddam in the first place, so now that it has done it the least it can do is fulfill its responsibilities. Anything less would be a grievous dereliction of duty, and the world would be forced to come its own grim conclusions. This would be catastrophic news for everyone. This horrid bed is made, alas, and must be lain on.

Hope this helped,

Answer 2

Against the Iraq War but since we started it we need to finish it. Of course there is the possibility that with Saddam in power we would have eventually had to go to war at some point. Who knows? I just think the money could have been better spent in the USA on domestic energy development. Mind you, I'm not some idiot who is blindly anti-War or anti-military. Until everyone in the world ceases to be aggressive there will always be a need for a military. As long as countries compete for land and resources there will be war. People who campaign to end all wars or get rid of the military are living in a dreamworld.

Answer 3

Actually, didn't a congressional report come out saying the Iraq war has made terrorism stronger? Saddam kept terrorism levels down in Iraq to protect himself, and without him, they've infiltrated. There was evidence of WMDs, but there was also evidence that there wasn't WMDs. I think they should have investigated more before going to war. That is what the other countries were telling us, and they turned out to be right. I do think he was an evil dictator who should have been removed. But I don't think he was on the top of that list for the world. If we are going to remove bad dictators, I wouldn't say he was the first. Also, I think that they have screwed up every aspect of the war from the government level.

Also, there will be a time were the deaths of US soldiers is equal to that of 9/11. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Answer 4

Not justified at all.

No WMD found, still. Bush even admitted recently there weren't any WMD - that the intelligence was faulty.

Are we safer? Hmmmm, 3 years later and MORE US soldiers are dying, the Iraqis keep coming, the whole region is destabilized politically, Iran is going ahead with nuclear weapons research because they know we're a toothless dog because all our resources are tied up in Iraq because we're "staying the course". Meanwhile N. Korea has tested a nuclear missile...

And by the way have we taken the recommendations from the 9/11 commission to beef up our port security? No.

NO, we're not any safer.


NO we're not safer

Answer 5

It is so refreshing to see someone with facts instead of hatred and lies. The world will be much safer once the Iraqis establish a sound government. Despite what the other side says there were meetings with Al-Qaida members taking place inside Iraq before we went in and it would not have been long before they would have acquired biological or nuclear weapons paid for by Saddam. Keep up the good work.

Answer 6

.. there is no justifiable reason for it ... the only true reason is a policy of american domination and imperialism after the cold war .. it was planned to be in the middle east for several strategic reasons and since the united states considers itself the preeminant world military power it was thought wise to put down any country or regime which is not pro-american and willing to come into line with US and nato policy ... the only reason for not "finishing the job" in the first gulf war was that there wasnt a good enough reason to convince the american population and world to stay ... we needed a "catalyzing" event as described in the defense department memo written by the pnac and incorporated into US foreign policy "rebuilding americas defenses" ... 911 was that catalyzing event whether it was executed by the US administratio or simply allowed to happen ... either way "terrorism" is the stated reason and excuse for everything these days .. but any rationally thinking person can see that its just a propaganda tool and a scare tactic ...

Answer 7

Lets assume as a results of all the killing there between 100000 - 600000 people have been killed. Who do you think the kids and family of these people are going to blame?
This is making us safer? Saddam deserves killing but is it worth almost 3000 young people killed, 20000+ shot up, over a Trillion in cost to get rid of this guy?
Us safer? Maybe today, but not by destroying Iraq.

Answer 8

No war is justifed,
and the world today, has moore terrorism now, because there is moore hate

Answer 9

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Hmmmm Not all Bush's fault

Answer 10

its made the usa a hell of alot safer