The Iraq War, Was It Worth It?

[xfire]

So there were WMD's in Iraq at that point?

We know Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons because we gave them to him. The question is, when did he not have them, where did they go, and who took them there? Iraq didn't have shit to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, which was the galvanizing event that allowed George W. Bush to go to war.

 

[mikexmoran]

We know Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons because we gave them to him. The question is, when did he not have them, where did they go, and who took them there? Iraq didn't have shit to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, which was the galvanizing event that allowed George W. Bush to go to war.

Agreed.

Not letting a crisis go to waste can be dangerous and in this case was.

 

[meesterperfect]

IF Saddam had WMD destruction when Clinton attacked in 1998, they had already been destroyed in 2003 when Bush attacked

why be so sure they were destroyed? i think common sense would point to moved or hidden over destroyed.

We know Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons because we gave them to him. The question is, when did he not have them, where did they go, and who took them there? Iraq didn't have shit to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, which was the galvanizing event that allowed George W. Bush to go to war.

Educate me, seriously who gave him chemical weapons, when?
And are they really that hard to produce that he couldnt have obtained more at some point?
I agree iraq wasnt involved with 9/11. I think we attacked due to all the UN sanctions he said fuck you to.
Also we just got attacked and with great consequence, leaving Saddam around after wouldnt have been wise.
If the UN is really a necessary thing than what god are eternal warnings with no eventual action? that would be just show biz.

My feelings about Iraq is that the entire world, every country with a military should have joined in and got rid of him and helped with the recovery of the country.
And do the same to any country, even the USA if itever comes to it, that has gone bat shit crazy and started mass murdering people, civilians..
In the name of peace and security for all humanoids.

I see most voted no. I voted other.
Because without a crystal ball in 2003 how could you really know if it was worth it or not?

 

[xfire]

From Fox News, a source you trust.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html

Report: Reagan Gave Military Aid to Iraq

Published August 18, 2002

FoxNews.com

The Reagan administration secretly gave Iraq vital tactical help despite knowing that Iraqi troops would use chemical warfare in its war against Iran, The New York Times reported Sunday.

Iraq's use of chemical weapons in that conflict, from 1981 to 1988, is now cited by the Bush administration as a reason to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

Senior military officers with direct knowledge of the American dealings with Iraq told the newspaper that the covert program was in full swing even though the Reagan administration's top brass were publicly blasting Baghdad for relying on poison gas, most notable on minority Kurds in March 1988. Among the loudest condemners was then-national security adviser Gen. Colin Powell, now secretary of state under Bush.

A spokesman for Powell called the latest allegations that the U.S. knowingly let Iraq use chemical weapons "dead wrong," but would not further discuss it. Other senior military officials from the period and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment.

The new revelations are evidence that the United States was more deeply involved in the Iran-Iraq war than previously believed. The U.S. had taken a firm anti-Iran stance to protect oil-producing states nearby from Tehran's brand of Islamic zealotry, and it was long known that Washington gave Iraq intelligence assistance in the form of satellite reconnaissance.

According to the senior officials, who asked not to be identified, Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior military officials supported the program that had more than 60 DIA officers essentially working for Iraq, giving Baghdad detailed information on Iranian strengths and troop deployments, tactical planning, airstrike plans and damage assessment. That support never wavered even though the administration knew that Iraq was using mustard gas, sarin and VX against Iranian soldiers.

Iraq never, however, explicitly admitted using chemical weapons to the U.S., though it became more and more obvious as the war wore on..

A senior defense intelligence officer at the time said that the U.S.'s paramount concern was that Iran did not win.

The DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival," Col. Walter P. Lang, now retired, told the newspaper.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html#ixzz2LZTmIrIN

 

[meesterperfect]

its still inconclusive but lets say its true.
So for ejamplo if I gave you a chainsaw to chop down some trees and you went and killed a bunch of people with it would i be responsible too?
I would have no right to try to stop you?

either way, saddam had invaded kuwait and also had killed many civilians. the whole world should have taken him out together.
And a point of hypocrisy. most everybody does/did support europe attacking Germany when they invaded poland (even though a big part of poland was once germany and it was taken from them).
At least they had a reason. And the price of taking out Hitler was 1000 times more than saddam.
So then why is most everybody against taking out Saddam for doing basically the same thing?
Can someone please tell me the difference?

 

[Mayhem]

why be so sure they were destroyed? i think common sense would point to moved or hidden over destroyed.



Educate me, seriously who gave him chemical weapons, when?
And are they really that hard to produce that he couldnt have obtained more at some point?
I agree iraq wasnt involved with 9/11. I think we attacked due to all the UN sanctions he said fuck you to.
Also we just got attacked and with great consequence, leaving Saddam around after wouldnt have been wise.
If the UN is really a necessary thing than what god are eternal warnings with no eventual action? that would be just show biz.

My feelings about Iraq is that the entire world, every country with a military should have joined in and got rid of him and helped with the recovery of the country.
And do the same to any country, even the USA if itever comes to it, that has gone bat shit crazy and started mass murdering people, civilians..
In the name of peace and security for all humanoids.

I see most voted no. I voted other.
Because without a crystal ball in 2003 how could you really know if it was worth it or not?

its still inconclusive but lets say its true.
So for ejamplo if I gave you a chainsaw to chop down some trees and you went and killed a bunch of people with it would i be responsible too?
I would have no right to try to stop you?

either way, saddam had invaded kuwait and also had killed many civilians. the whole world should have taken him out together.
And a point of hypocrisy. most everybody does/did support europe attacking Germany when they invaded poland (even though a big part of poland was once germany and it was taken from them).
At least they had a reason. And the price of taking out Hitler was 1000 times more than saddam.
So then why is most everybody against taking out Saddam for doing basically the same thing?
Can someone please tell me the difference?

Everything you say in the first post, I agree with to one extent or another.

To answer your question, the Iraq invasion wasn't worth it because it took away resources we needed for Afghanistan. The weak-ass way we have fought the Afghan War is the reason why it took so long to kill bin Laden and why we haven't wiped out AlQueda/Taliban.

And in response to:

either way, saddam had invaded kuwait and also had killed many civilians. the whole world should have taken him out together

...a couple weeks ago, I got collectively groin kicked for suggesting that Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf wasn't that big of a deal for failing to do that very thing (plus other reasons).

 

[xfire]

So then why is most everybody against taking out Saddam for doing basically the same thing? Can someone please tell me the difference?

Saddam Hussein didn't have any connection to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It would be like attacking Canada if Mexico invaded our southern border.

 

[Johan]

why be so sure they were destroyed? i think common sense would point to moved or hidden over destroyed.

'cause No WMD have been found in Iraq since the begfinning f the war. If Saddam had WMD, they would have been found and f they would have been found, the bush administration would have reported the finding.

 

[Lolita_Borgia]

Maybe one day the supposedly most intelligent species will stop annihilating themselves & actually utilise their so called intelligence for goals other than material gain... but hey who I am kidding!

 

[meesterperfect]

Everything you say in the first post, I agree with to one extent or another.


To answer your question, the Iraq invasion wasn't worth it because it took away resources we needed for Afghanistan. The weak-ass way we have fought the Afghan War is the reason why it took so long to kill bin Laden and why we haven't wiped out AlQueda/Taliban.

And in response to:
...a couple weeks ago, I got collectively groin kicked for suggesting that Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf wasn't that big of a deal for failing to do that very thing (plus other reasons).

glad to hear that.

Saddam Hussein didn't have any connection to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It would be like attacking Canada if Mexico invaded our southern border.

youre right, he wasnt attacking anyone at the moment.
raping torturing and murdering his own people like he had been for 30 years but not invading.
Did Bush use 9/11 to gain support for the invasion? Maybe.
But it is fact that he had many many sanctions by the UN, was not co-operating for years, he had a bit of a history of mass killings under his turban , ect., so maybe 2002-3 was just a good time to get rid of him once and for all.
Also dont forget he was given plenty of time to take his billions of $$$$$ and just leave and he gave us the finger instead.
and its nice to see a post from you without any name calling........youre maturing nicely.

'cause No WMD have been found in Iraq since the begfinning f the war. If Saddam had WMD, they would have been found and f they would have been found, the bush administration would have reported the finding.

Well iraq is pretty big, plus he had time to move them. so there is no way to know.
but youre point is illogical if you think that meant he never had them with 100% certainty.

 

[meesterperfect]

Maybe one day the supposedly most intelligent species will stop annihilating themselves & actually utilise their so called intelligence for goals other than material gain... but hey who I am kidding!

yeah tell it to these guys

maybe if we try bringing Christianity to their region ..............

 

[Deepcover]

The Americans invading Iraq back in 2003 was an embarressment imo...If W. Bush couldn't invade Iraq he would have tried another country. The biggest shocker was in his 2003 State Of The Union speech when W. clearly stated that he was going to war "Either you are with us, or you are against us" Pure Ronald Reagan attitude...and for also mistakenly mentioning Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa which turned out to be untrue and an embarrassment. Mission Accomplished...

 

[xfire]

You're right, he wasn't attacking anyone at the moment. Raping torturing and murdering his own people like he had been for 30 years, but not invading. Did Bush use 9/11 to gain support for the invasion? Maybe. But it is fact that he had many many sanctions by the UN, was not co-operating for years, he had a bit of a history of mass killings under his turban , ect., so maybe 2002-3 was just a good time to get rid of him once and for all. Also don't forget he was given plenty of time to take his billions of $$$$$ and just leave and he gave us the finger instead.

I love how you're so dismissive of a republican lying to you, but, by god, every democrat is a piece of shit worthy of contempt and liable to a higher standard. Why is that?

And its nice to see a post from you without any name calling........you're maturing nicely.

Sometimes I am guilty of reflecting the level of maturity directed at me back at the person I'm dealing with, such has been the case when dealing with you. For that, I apologize. I saw the error of my ways. Hopefully we can both elevate the discourse.

 

[meesterperfect]

I love how you're so dismissive of a republican lying to you, but, by god, every democrat is a piece of shit worthy of contempt and liable to a higher standard. Why is that?



Sometimes I am guilty of reflecting the level of maturity directed at me back at the person I'm dealing with, such has been the case when dealing with you. For that, I apologize. I saw the error of my ways. Hopefully we can both elevate the discourse.

Good to hear.
No XF, I think that 9/11 was probably used to an extent to gain support for Iraq.
probably, maybe, but maybe not. I dont really know.
Its not really black or white, something that can be proven........maybe it is.
The main point i was trying to make in my other post is that regardless of what party had the white house at the time ( really, I dont care. If it was clinton I'd feel the same) that maybe 2003 was really the right time to remove his stinky ass.
I was for clinton taking him out in 98,99.
I was against clinton going into yugoslavia and africa. ( those were internal beefs).
For the world. I mean the UN, who is supposed to represent whats best for the world can threaten him forever, if he knows thats the extent of it then its just useless.
And a big part people never mention is that he was given time to voluntarily disappear with all his assets.
i see the point " we cant just attack someone unless theyve attacked us first". however thats basically the same as saying " i'm gonna keep this rabid dog in my house until it attacks me, then Ill get rid of it".
En fin. mayhems point about concentrating more on afghanistan instead of iraq. has a lot of merit i think.
But like I said, without a crystal ball in 2003, how could anyone really know if Iraq was a mistake or not.

 

[vodkazvictim]

...a couple weeks ago, I got collectively groin kicked for suggesting that Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf wasn't that big of a deal for failing to do that very thing.

You'd think people would listen to a soldier; after all, surely the soldier knows military situations best?

 

[xfire]

The main point i was trying to make in my other post is that regardless of what party had the white house at the time ( really, I dont care. If it was clinton I'd feel the same) that maybe 2003 was really the right time to remove his stinky ass.

An attack on a nation that has not already initiated an armed conflict is not allowed under the UN charter. The reason the Gulf War of 1991 was allowed was because Saddam Hussein initiated an attack against Kuwait. Saddam Hussein made no similar acts of war leading up to the invasion of 2003.

 

[meesterperfect]

Ok thats good info.
Not allowed under the UN charter.
And the USA is part of the UN obviously, so they must abide by the rules of the UN I suppose.
I remember Bolton kept telling the UN about WMDs and the need to invade. So I guess he never actually got their official Ok to invade.
But the USA did anyway.
Thats all pretty much true right?

Ok, so that leaves us the question:
Just because the UN charter says that you cant attack a country unless they attack someone first does that mean it should never happen no matter what?
Are there circumstances where it can be deemed necessary? both legally and logically.
I mean if you cant attack, only impose "sanctions" isnt that obviously futile?

But I think more importantly is there anything in The US constitution that says the same? I believe I heard Ron Paul say there is.
Anybody know?

 

[xfire]

Ok thats good info.
Not allowed under the UN charter.
And the USA is part of the UN obviously, so they must abide by the rules of the UN I suppose.
I remember Bolton kept telling the UN about WMDs and the need to invade. So I guess he never actually got their official Ok to invade.
But the USA did anyway.
Thats all pretty much true right?

Ok, so that leaves us the question:
Just because the UN charter says that you cant attack a country unless they attack someone first does that mean it should never happen no matter what?
Are there circumstances where it can be deemed necessary? both legally and logically.
I mean if you cant attack, only impose "sanctions" isnt that obviously futile?

But I think more importantly is there anything in The US constitution that says the same? I believe I heard Ron Paul say there is.
Anybody know?

The United States isn't an imperialistic nation. Only a country that's attempting to build an empire would attack other nations without provocation. However, I'm reluctant to deal in absolutes and would have to look at each case ad hoc. I don't believe that Iraq rose to the threat level needed to justify a preventive attack.

 

[alexios]

I voted other because A) it is the correct answer and B) it's really too early to tell. Here's why:

1. "Worth it" in what sense? You need to define what objective you're using before determining if the action was worth it.

2. To use an example, in the broad sense, look at Europe in 1950- many people believed that Europe could never recover from such a devastating war and return to any semblance of prosperity. Arguably, Europe didn't fully return to prosperity until at least 10-15 years after the end of World War II, which shows that these things take time to develop. Now, when you factor in that this is Iraq's first large-scale experimentation with democracy, regional political and ethnic instability, localized factionalism and distrust, as well as a still vibrant terrorist presence, trying to gauge whether or not the operation was a success a mere 10 years after the operation started- let alone when the Iraqis themselves assumed control of the situation- seems ridiculously short-sighted.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I love that nobody has yet made the obious answer:
"Ask the Iraqis."

Well of course I meant Clinton, who's face is in the video with words coming out of it you freaky bastard.
So he used F15Es to strike Iraqi WMD facilities?
So there were WMD's in Iraq at that point?

I'm not sure really, but I figure a guy who could do this could do about anything:

If you call me a freaky bastard again I'll force-feed you toothpastes and laxatives 'til you shit on my toothbrush, then brush my teeth.
I don't know if there were WMDs in Iraq at that point, but according to Hans Blix's book Clinton's F15e strikes eliminated Iraq's WMD facilities.
Remember that I read this book in excess of 10 years ago, so don't expect me to be able to regurgitate it verbatim.

IF Saddam had WMD destruction when Clinton attacked in 1998, they had already been destroyed in 2003 when Bush attacked

So it would seem, given that they were never located.

We know Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons because we gave them to him. The question is, when did he not have them, where did they go, and who took them there? Iraq didn't have shit to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, which was the galvanizing event that allowed George W. Bush to go to war.

Since Xfire has been big enough to admit that his country gave Iraq WMD, I think I'll attempt to emulate him in order to look better by association in mentioning that the UK also gave Iraq WMD.
If memory serves, we gave mustard gas. That means it's hghly probable that we Brits made the genocide of the Kurds possible.

why be so sure they were destroyed? i think common sense would point to moved or hidden over destroyed.

Yeah, because Saddam's army did everything else so well, of course they moved/hid/destroyed the WMD
Seriously, stand back and take an objective look at yourself; you believe only that which you wish to, so it appears to me.

'cause No WMD have been found in Iraq since the begfinning f the war. If Saddam had WMD, they would have been found and f they would have been found, the bush administration would have reported the finding.

:yesyes:

Maybe one day the supposedly most intelligent species will stop annihilating themselves & actually utilise their so called intelligence for goals other than material gain... but hey who I am kidding!

Show tits?

Well iraq is pretty big, plus he had time to move them. so there is no way to know.
but youre point is illogical if you think that meant he never had them with 100% certainty.

Yeah, because Saddam's army did everything else so well, of course they moved/hid/destroyed the WMD
Seriously, stand back and take an objective look at yourself; you believe only that which you wish to, so it appears to me.
It is of course impossible to say with 100% certainty, but given the scale and length of the occupation and that Saddam himself was found, isn't it more possible that he had no WMDs (as claimed) before invasion than it is possible that he had them.
Read Hans Blixx's book. He said there were none.
Guess what? There were none.
Incidently, the efforts of Hans Blixx, international weapons inspector, were severely hindered by the americans planting spies in his team. Who knows, if america didn't do things like that, maybe we could've persuaded North Korea to abandon nukes some time ago (ago, now I admit it, THAT is RE-HE-HEARLY unlikely...)