The Iraq War

Mordo · March 29, 2015, 01:23:10 PM

Do you support or condemn the US, UK and various other coalition allies that invaded Iraq in 2003?

I'm kind of mixed about it. On one hand the explanation Bush and Blair gave for invading Iraq was tenuous at best. All WMD's were either lost or destroyed during the Gulf War, so I kind of reconcile with the zeitgeist that it was a pretty pathetic reason to invade. On the other hand it toppled one of the most oppressive, totalitarian dictatorships of the decade, and if Saddam were to continue unchecked, I'm positive Iraq would've been astronomically off worse than it is today.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 01:24:34 PM

One of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare.

Mordo · March 29, 2015, 01:25:57 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 01:24:34 PM

One of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare.

Explain?

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 01:32:29 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on March 29, 2015, 01:25:57 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 01:24:34 PM
One of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare.
Explain?

You're better off referring to what Christopher Hitchens had to say on the issue.

The war didn't really end in 1992, there was a just long interlude. Pretty much everybody politically aware at the time knew just where our relations with Iraq were going; nobody was duped into a war. Hussein was a Middle Eastern Stalin, subjecting hundreds of thousands of Shi'a Muslims and Kurds to genocide--including the use of WMDs--as well as creating one of the biggest ecological disasters in his draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes.

He's was a psychopathic fundamentalist, capable of taking the Strait of Hormuz and controlling 20pc of the world's oil supply, he harboured international criminals and terrorists and was incredibly militant towards neighbouring countries like Iran and Kuwait. Did we make mistakes? Yes. But we are not responsible for the current situation of Iraq, which is a result of Nouri al-Maliki's partisanship and marginalisation of Sunni leaders who had been pivotal to the establishment of security in the country.

He led a genocidal, fascist government. If anybody has ever deserved to die, it was Saddam Hussein. And in the long-run Iraq will be better off for the war having been prosecuted.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 01:45:21 PM

YouTube

Turkey · March 29, 2015, 01:48:55 PM

It's also important to recognize that we weren't just inserting ourselves into another country's sovereignty. Saddam controlled a huge amount the world's oil, and the Straight of Hormuz is one of the most important trade routes in the world. Any aggressive act on his part could have crippled the world economy, or held it hostage. It would have been absolutely unacceptable to let Saddam's regime stay in power.

cxfhvxgkcf-56:7 · March 29, 2015, 01:54:10 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 02:00:02 PM

Quote from: S\ash on March 29, 2015, 01:54:10 PM

we seriously fucked up on the post war clean up and rehab.

I don't even think this is that consequential a point.

Following the liberation, a democratic nation was established and debates were held on at least six television channels and almost one hundred newspapers. When, just years before, it would have been a long, painful death sentence for even owning a satellite dish or trying to distribute a leaflet.

Mistakes were made, obviously. But it doesn't begin to negate the wholesale righteousness of the war.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 03:04:03 PM

Perpetuates the flawed notion that the West should be international policemen, and then pats itself on the back as if it won and the world is somehow more stable than it was before.

Thanks for creating ISIS, dipshits.

Not Comms Officer · March 29, 2015, 03:23:35 PM

If Saddam Hussein stayed in power, Iraq would have exploded worse than Syria right now. So I'm actually somewhat grateful for the US/UK for ending Saddam Hussein before Iraq could have been totally destroyed by him.

gats · March 29, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

Lol you can say taking out Saddam was justified but nothing else. The US completely fucked up Iraq, you could probably say far more suffered because of the war than under Saddam's rule.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 03:32:55 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:04:03 PM

Thanks for creating ISIS, dipshits.

ISIS has existed since at least 1999.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 03:35:11 PM

Quote from: gats on March 29, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

The US completely fucked up Iraq, you could probably say far more suffered because of the war than under Saddam's rule.

Hussein's rule was destabilising. It was a fomenting vortex of toxicity and ethnic divisions. And when Saddam died, what do you think would've happened? The influence the Turks are trying to garner over their "rightful place" in Kurdistan, the interference of Iran in the Shi'a population and Saudi Arabia in the Sunnis would've been much more pronounced and aggressive.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 03:37:57 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:32:55 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:04:03 PM
Thanks for creating ISIS, dipshits.
ISIS has existed since at least 1999.

Not true.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 03:42:34 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:37:57 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:04:03 PM
Thanks for creating ISIS, dipshits.
ISIS has existed since at least 1999.
Not true.

I stopped reading at the blatantly false statement:

Quote

Three years ago, the Islamic State (Isis) did not exist

It was founded by al-Zarqawi in 1999 as the JTJ.

gats · March 29, 2015, 03:54:26 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:35:11 PM

Quote from: gats on March 29, 2015, 03:27:21 PM
The US completely fucked up Iraq, you could probably say far more suffered because of the war than under Saddam's rule.
Hussein's rule was destabilising. It was a fomenting vortex of toxicity and ethnic divisions. And when Saddam died, what do you think would've happened? The influence the Turks are trying to garner over their "rightful place" in Kurdistan, the interference of Iran in the Shi'a population and Saudi Arabia in the Sunnis would've been much more pronounced and aggressive.

I probably shouldn't have worded it as if I was against the war. From a realistic point of view even though people suffered and they did, I can't imagine how many innocent people have died, women raped, children made orphan. But at least now with Saddam gone I guess they can start to rebuild.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:42:34 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:37:57 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:04:03 PM
Thanks for creating ISIS, dipshits.
ISIS has existed since at least 1999.
Not true.
I stopped reading at the blatantly false statement:
Quote
Three years ago, the Islamic State (Isis) did not exist

It was founded by al-Zarqawi in 1999 as the JTJ.

ISIS as we know it did not exist then. The statement is still true.

But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 03:57:46 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM

But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

4 in 10 Americans would be correct.

DAS B00T x2 · March 29, 2015, 03:58:38 PM

Quote from: gats on March 29, 2015, 03:54:26 PM

From a realistic point of view even though people suffered and they did, I can't imagine how many innocent people have died, women raped, children made orphan.

Less now than if nobody intervened at all.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:57:46 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*
4 in 10 Americans would be correct.

The operative word in 'active WMD program' is active. The suggestion that Iraq had an active WMD program is factually inaccurate. To support the Iraq War is to support all of the misconceptions surrounding it.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: saⱭ tooᗺ 2x on March 29, 2015, 03:58:38 PM

Less now than if nobody intervened at all.

Tell that to the bodies in the mass graves we're still finding.

Turkey · March 29, 2015, 04:00:23 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM

But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

That's kind of irrelevant to what you're talking about though, isn't it?

One could just as easily throw out statistics of people that didn't realize Iraq had WMDs at all. Hell, it's still a widespread belief that it was just a fabricated excuse to go to war, despite the use of chemical weapons being a decade-long conflict with Iraq.

Was Saddam actively manufacturing chemical weapons when we invaded? Of course not. Years of threatening invasion and UN inspections gave him plenty of time to end the operation and cover up evidence.

DAS B00T x2 · March 29, 2015, 04:01:40 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: saⱭ tooᗺ 2x on March 29, 2015, 03:58:38 PM
Less now than if nobody intervened at all.
Tell that to the bodies in the mass graves we're still finding.

Wait, am I reading Gats wrong or are you reading me wrong?

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 04:02:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:57:46 PM
Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*
4 in 10 Americans would be correct.
The operative word in 'active WMD program' is active.

Who fucking cares? It's a point of non-discussion. Of course a stockpile of WMDs is not going to be active when there's no government to run the fucking programme.

What matters is that we did find WMDs.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 29, 2015, 04:00:23 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

That's kind of irrelevant to what you're talking about though, isn't it?

One could just as easily throw out statistics of people that didn't realize Iraq had WMDs at all. Hell, it's still a widespread belief that it was just a fabricated excuse to go to war, despite the use of chemical weapons being a decade-long conflict with Iraq.

But it was a fabricated excuse. The pretense was that Iraq had an active WMD program. That was proven to be false. The mission supposedly ended, but that was false, too. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 04:06:03 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 04:02:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 03:57:46 PM
Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*
4 in 10 Americans would be correct.
The operative word in 'active WMD program' is active.
Who fucking cares? It's a point of non-discussion. Of course a stockpile of WMDs is not going to be active when there's no government to run the fucking programme.

What matters is that we did find WMDs.

It was most certainly not in the capacity that the public and multiple world governments were led to believe. It was a justification for war founded on lies.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 04:07:04 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

The pretense was that Iraq had an active WMD program.

Even if that was the immediate case, it's facile to say we were somehow misled into a war. We never should've left him in power in '92, and the passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act quite explicitly said that co-existence with Saddam's regime was neither possible nor desirable.

There wasn't a sudden hysteria of anti-Iraqi feeling among the government, and anybody in the public who feels that way is either being dishonest or wasn't paying attention.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · March 29, 2015, 04:18:41 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 29, 2015, 04:07:04 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:04:13 PM
The pretense was that Iraq had an active WMD program.
Even if that was the immediate case, it's facile to say we were somehow misled into a war. We never should've left him in power in '92, and the passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act quite explicitly said that co-existence with Saddam's regime was neither possible nor desirable.

There wasn't a sudden hysteria of anti-Iraqi feeling among the government, and anybody in the public who feels that way is either being dishonest or wasn't paying attention.

Of course there wasn't any animus towards Iraq. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And I always found the argument of 'we found WMDs in Iraq so we were correct all along' to seem fallacious.

I liken it to climate denial. Despite the decades of evidence and overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of climate change, there are folks who like to ignore all of that and deny its existence anyway. On the off chance that those naysayers are actually correct, sure, they'll be right to some degree, but for all the wrong reasons. I would highly recommend that they abandon that school of thought in the future because of the unlikely chances of it being consistently correct.

More Than Mortal · March 29, 2015, 04:24:06 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:18:41 PM

Of course there wasn't any animus towards Iraq. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Say what you want about oil interests, but I'd take Halliburton's duplicity over Hussein controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Oil is a global security and macroeconomic interest.

Quote

And I always found the argument of 'we found WMDs in Iraq so we were correct all along' to seem fallacious.

Exactly correct, and Bush and Blair did a disservice to the world in initially trying to scare people.

But it doesn't neglect the fact that Bush just enacted the promises of the Clinton administration, and that Iraq was in violation of the U.N. resolutions imposed upon it and that it had a latent WMD capacity and a proven record of genocidal intentions.

Bush and Blair didn't need--or shouldn't have needed--to whip up a frenzy to justify an already wholly-justified war. I completely agree that they were wrong, and that our subsequent discovery of WMDs doesn't validate them, but it doesn't change the situation even slightly in relation to the righteousness of the war.

Turkey · March 29, 2015, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 29, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: Kupo on March 29, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
But I could go on and on about half-truths. *cough*

That's kind of irrelevant to what you're talking about though, isn't it?

One could just as easily throw out statistics of people that didn't realize Iraq had WMDs at all. Hell, it's still a widespread belief that it was just a fabricated excuse to go to war, despite the use of chemical weapons being a decade-long conflict with Iraq.
But it was a fabricated excuse. The pretense was that Iraq had an active WMD program. That was proven to be false. The mission supposedly ended, but that was false, too.

Haha, seriously? The successful mission accomplishment was false? The coalition absolutely steamrolled through Iraq and was very successful in its mission of toppling Saddam's regime. That's what that speech was about. It wasn't saying the entire war was over, just the first mission. And that brings up another point: The first objective of the war was to oust Saddam. It was not to stop a weapons program, it was to get him out. Stopping a potentially active weapons program was one of the objectives, but it wasn't the first, and it wasn't the sole reason for the invasion. By and large the ultimate goal was to address the humanitarian problems in the country.