should iraq have been invaded?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

this poll might come out a bit lopsided, seeing that alot of the regular posters of this forum are from europe which is largely anti war. but, my question is: Should Iraq have been invaded by the US, and coalilition?

Some people say that Iraq was a threat to the world because they supposedly possessed WMB. Dictator Saddam Hussein was also seen as a person that needed to be taken out of power because of all his crimes against humanity. Although, when invaded, no WMD’s were found in Iraq, President Bush claims that he had faulty intelligence but many wonder if Bush invaded Iraq simply for the oil. Also, the US is being criticized for being “world police.” It isnt really the US’s responsibility to take out bad leaders around the world is it? But…it is still better for the Iraqi people that Saddam is no longer in power.

I personally vote, No, the US shouldnt have invaded Iraq. I live in the US.

#2

Had the Iraq issue been dealt with in 1991 as an extension of Desert Storm/Op Granby the situation would have been a less complicated affair that would have met it’s objectives with a lower loss rate greater acceptability by the world at large including muslim countries.
The current situation is a balls up for which western countries will pay the price for years to come.
Iraqs regime may have been an abomination but it had no WMD’s, played no part in 9/11 and had no links with OBL. Iraq has substancial oil reserves and is currently filling the coffers of big business interests and supplying justification to muslim fundamentalists.
Why GWB/Blair were re-elected insted of being publicly spanked is beyond my understanding. They are currently speculating with the lives of both our armed forces for no genuine reason.

#3

This is my simplified view.

Saddam was a bit naughty and treated his country like his own plaything, and that included the lives of his subjects.

He needed to go, the UN weren’t doing much. He was I believe also paying money for terrorist needs amongst other things, his actions were dubious at times.

His blocking and similar disruption of arms inspectors, the activity seen around chemical weapon storage facilities, various other actions of purchase and manufacture that were peculiar but not neccesarily connected to WMDs

WMD I don’t know, if he did have them they could have been driven over to Iran. He did that with some of his air force in Granby.

Op Telic, I was involved in, and I have to say that I look forward to the day when Iraq is a happy, prosperous country ruled how it wants to be ruled. Then I shall be proud of my involvement.

#4

My honest opinion is, I dont know. My heart says yes, but my head says no.

#5

That’s why I go for the simple option.

If you get bogged down in buarcrtic red tape you end up with a no.

But I think that happens if you start with anything and apply red tape to it!!!

#6

The trouble for me is that there are other equally naughty people out there we as Nations dont seem to bother about, so the cynic in me says they have no resources we need so we dont bother. Like most of Africa, S America and Asia.

See Im thinking too much again…

#7

Well as someone who took part in that invasion I should be able to answer with the conviction of one who was “there”.

However I cant, I dont believe you can reduce this to a simple yes/no poll, I think my best answer would be in retrospect yes BUT the follow up strategy to the invasion was the biggest bag of bollox I could have imagined.

As I said at the time, on hearing Bush’s end of war statement :roll:

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better”

Unfortunately I was correct. :frowning:

#8

I believe we didnt need to invade ubt that having invaded we should stay there until it is cleared up.

We stirred up a hornets nest - and not the most volatile either therefore seeign as we broek it we shold ifx it. I can imagine a lot of other places in the world that might have benefitted from an international peace keeping force that didnt recieve help - that help instead going to Iraq.

Im not in Iraq and not properly in the military yet I should imagine that Ill end up somehwere hot and sandy be it Eyerack or Eyeran at some point in the future. maybe syria. I cant be sure as GW Bush hasnt rolled his dice yet.

#9

Ive thought about it off and on all day, and I too think the question is too simple. Ive met some nice locals as Bxxxxx, but at the same still felt that I was someohow letting them down as one especially had gone from Air Traffic Controller, to cleaning the Karzies out as this was all the work he could get. The place is also filled with contractors on abig juicy wage… aarghhh there I go see… thinking too much about it again…

#10

One of ours had an electronics engineering degree from Baghdad University, and he was earning $(US)10 a week cleaning our portaloos, while I was on roughly $(US)150 a day watching him do it, and I left school at 16.

Poor fuckers have got nothing.

#11

this thing about oil; gasoline prices have been soaring even faster ever since troops went to iraq…

#12

YES…and your point is

…where is the money from those higher prices going?
who is demanding higher prices for oil?
Who sets the prices?

#13

One of ours had an electronics engineering degree from Baghdad University, and he was earning $(US)10 a week cleaning our portaloos, while I was on roughly $(US)150 a day watching him do it, and I left school at 16.

Poor fuckers have got nothing.[/quote]

Yes I agree with that. Also true of Kosovo, my two cleaners were a Lawyer and a teacher and both earned more cleaning than they could in their chosen profession. I know its a diffrent situation to Iraq, but its still crap.

#14

i dont believe that iraq should have been invaded. WMD were just an excuse for Bush to finish daddy’s job. there were UN weapons inspector’s in the country for months, and they didnt find anything, so why did the US think that if they invaded that nukes would suddenly appear? the US has lost 1600+ soldiers for what? taking out a madman ruler, that was good, but he posed no threat to the US. and, there are plenty of other countries with corrupt leadership out there, is it the US’s right to decided who is bad, who is good, and take out all of the people that they dont like even if they do not pose an immenent threat? i dont think so.

#15

I dont know about WMD’s but if they could burry a Mig 25 fox Bat Im sure they could burry some little ol WMD’s.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml

sadam led everyone to believe he had them…thats what he wanted everyone to think. Are the moved…burried?? Who knows

#16

I dont think they ever existed. By now some informers etc would hav given the locations away for some money. By ever existed I mean at the time i.e. 2003.

#17

Iraq did have WMDs before, and they did lie about them before, and being that Iraq is located in a corrupt part of the world, there really wasn’t anything to stop them from producing them. Iraq DID have an interest. Even UN weapons inspectors were seen on TV occasionally explaining about research labs that they found every week. Yes, these labs are no bigger than a house, and yes they cant produce a weapon, but tell me – what does a country that claims no interest in WMDs doing with this information?

#18

I don’t think they ever existed, but I do think the Iraqi government was trying to make everyone think they existed while never giving the UN proof that they could use to do anything. There was a very interesting interview after the war where a reporter from the New York Times (not the most pro-Bush of all papers!) interviewed a large selection of officers from the Republican guard. These officers all said that their unit didn’t have chemical weapons, but that they knew that another unit just down the road did - in a circular fashion, so they all thought the other units had chemical weapons. This can, I think, only have been a deliberate attempt by the regime to make people think they had chemical weapons (it was too universal to be anything else). This was in fact the source for the “45 minutes” claim - one of the officers in the Republican Guard reported this belief that other units had the weapons as a fact, and it was widely publicised in the west.

Personally I think getting rid of the Iraqi government was a very good thing - they were a complete bunch of scumbags and the world is very definately better off without them. However, this also applies to more than a few other states - Zimbabwe, North Korea, Syria and several of the -stans spring to mind as places with severe human rights violations where the government rules despite the people, not on their behalf. I’d certainly like to see them all on the list (probably Zimbabwe or one of the -stans first, although Russia may raise a bit of a stink about the latter).

However, the cynic in me suspects that Iraq was all about the US needing someone to fight in revenge for the WTC attacks, and not really caring who. And is probably right about their motivation, although I do care more about the results than the rationale.

#19

Just incidentally, I dont consider any chemical weapons WMD. I believe that only nuclear weapons have that capacity. Unless destruction only pertains to killing living things and even then they would have to be used in massive quantities, only seen in Warsaw Pact inventories of the Cold War.

A subtle play on words in my opinion.

#20

The WMD’s in Iraq did exist…do you remember…

Nerve Agent Sarin Identified in 1993 as Chemical Weapon Used Earlier by Iraq Against Kurdish Population

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemsaringas.html