[idjeff]

What is everbody's problem with the US invading Iraq? Honest question here...I would like honest answers.

[idjeff]

I know that this is a pretty direct question, but is it stumping a lot of people here? And don't give me "nothing, but the BUSH said there were WMD's"

[PacHead]

I'd reply, but I have no problem with invading Iraq, or a number of other places that need cleaning for that matter.



My guess is certain people would prefer Saddam than a free Iraq.

[BlackGriffen]

For starters, the accidental deaths of innocents weren't exactly accidents in the sense that they were unforeseeable. They were inevitable. So, basically, part of the decision to go to war involved saying, "Let's play Russian Roulette," to the Iraqi people.

Some feel that such was justified. Under different circumstances, or even just better management of the aftermath (implies having sufficient resources and troops to pull off such management), I might agree.

Sadly, that is not the case. Let's take stock of the situation:

• No WMDs found - it's questionable that they were there before the war at all. This means that Iraq was not a threat to US security, and was at most a minimal threat to its neighbors.
• Saddam Hussein is out of power. Considered in a vacuum, that's great. That Saddam is gone is not sufficient, however, because we have to consider the aftermath. Given the insurgency and overall lack of security in the country, Iraq may be worse off right now than under Saddam Hussein.
• The Abu Ghraib prison scandal damaged people's lives and devastated America's image. It was a direct consequence of the lack of management, and possibly other factors including mimicry of interrogation techniques used elsewhere.

The situation does not look good, and may not improve. Even if we manage to eventually pull off building a democratized Iraq, the sacrifices were debatably not worth it, and the Iraqis themselves will probably hold a grudge about it (ie, they'll probably say it wasn't worth it).

There are other problems associated with the war. For instance, Bush ordering the troops into action without sufficient funding for supplies, and then basically holding them hostage for $87 billion is wrong. First you get the money for sufficient supplies, then you order the troops into action. Bush had months to prepare, and Republicans control both the House and Senate, there's no excuse for not doing it right.

Long story short, don't brush the innocents' casualties off so lightly. There needs to be some serious mitigating factors to justify the sacrifice, and I'm frankly just not seeing any. The national security angle went up in smoke with David Kay's report. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the only Al Qaeda camp in Iraq was in Kurdish territory (you know, our allies in the war), so retribution is out. Liberation requires competent management of the aftermath, and Bush has done a bang up job there. Not to mention that our troops' lives should not be put on the line without adequate supplies if it is in any way avoidable, and Bush even failed to do that.

We can also pile on ignoring the advice of experienced generals (like Shinseki) and previously drawn up plans in planning for the war and its aftermath, but that would just be piling it on.

BlackGriffen

[AKcrab]

I think the UN inspection were actually working. The lack of WMD reinforces my oppinion. I think it was only a matter of time before Saddam fell, without 1000+ American lives, and who knows how many thousands of Iraqui lives.

None of the 9/11 terrorist came from (or trained in) Iraq. Maybe we should have invaded Florida, where a couple of them went to flight school?

We should have finished in Afghanistan (I completely support that action) before thinking about another invasion.

[demograph68]

I just don't want the USA to go gungho and invade any country that functions badly. If a country attacks another for power, that is not tolerable. But inside conflicts should be dealt with through diplomatic means only. The whole thing with Iraq was that it was based on preemptive attack. Though that is what makes this war controversial. The Iraqis were under dictatorship, true, though the main concern was if Saddam was likely to bomb an outside country again, or continue with it's debatable links with terrorists. Basically, in my opinion, this war was based on corrupt suspicions.

[Mithras]

Yes, my biggest problem is how it's undermined the war on Al-Qaeda.

We pulled Arabic language specialists, and equipment, out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. Do the names Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Ayman al-Zawahiri ring any bells? Yeah, they were the guys who "knocked these towers down." And they haven't heard from us. Why we could only manage 10,000 troops for Afghanistan, but 130,000 for Iraq, should really give us pause.

If squelching Al-Qaeda, rather than finding a war that neo-cons thought we could win, were the goal, then we might have followed Tommy Franks' advice and started looking at failed states that are hotbeds of terrorism, like Somalia and Yemen. Instead we focused on a country that posed no particular danger to us, that was economically and military contained, and that had very little if any link to terrorism.

As someone who I think is a bit of a dope has said, it was the wrong war in the wrong country at the wrong time. It has also ruined our credibility. If we next do want to "preventively" invade a country, but actually have a good reason to, do you think the world will acquiesce? Not after this experience.

[Mithras]

Also: It's been quite a while since Americans have had to face the prospect of war on our own soil, and the death of innocents that results.

I think we'd have given this invasion much more careful scrutiny if it had been thousands of innocent Americans, rather than thousands of innocent Iraqis, that would have "unfortunately accidently" died.

[Secret__Police]

I thought we invaded for the cheap gas.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by idjeff:
What is everbody's problem with the US invading Iraq? Honest question here...I would like honest answers.

Any way you slice it, man.

Maury

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Also: It's been quite a while since Americans have had to face the prospect of war on our own soil, and the death of innocents that results.

I think we'd have given this invasion much more careful scrutiny if it had been thousands of innocent Americans, rather than thousands of innocent Iraqis, that would have "unfortunately accidently" died.

Somehow, I don't think so.

Innocent people were going to die in Iraq, whether or not we invaded. The only question was how many. In the last twelve years of Saddam's reign, two million innocent people died as a direct result of his abuses; some directly from his squads, but mostly through starvation because of his abuse of the oil-for-food program. On average, that is some 13,889 people per month. By even the worst estimates, we have yet to cross that number in the year and a half since the war began, even counting the 1000 American soldiers to date. That is over 200,000 people -all of them Iraqi- who are alive today because of the war.

Is it a shame? Of course it is. But it is a vast improvement. In the real world, that is just about all you can hope for. This is not a Disney movie where everyone can be saved, and it is important to not lose sight of that. But the important thing is to do what one can.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Is it a shame? Of course it is. But it is a vast improvement.

That assertion is, at best, debatable. The Iraqis, in particular, would seem not to agree. Who would be better able to judge whether or not the situation is better than the Iraqis themselves?

BlackGriffen

[Jim Paradise]

For starters they invaded a sovereign nation that posed them no threat. Wouldn't it be really great if other countries started doing that?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That assertion is, at best, debatable. The Iraqis, in particular, would seem not to agree. Who would be better able to judge whether or not the situation is better than the Iraqis themselves?

BlackGriffen

I think you mean the insurgents BG. Which are HARDLY the majority.

Why do the left try to make the insurgents = ALl of Iraq?

I never understood that kind of dishonesty.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
For starters they invaded a sovereign nation that posed them no threat.

You haven't been paying attention obviously.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
Wouldn't it be really great if other countries started doing that?

YES, hopefully, Russia will be doing the same soon.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by dcolton:
YES, hopefully, Russia will be doing the same soon.

Soon?

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You haven't been paying attention obviously.

Quite closely, in fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
Quite closely, in fact.

Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't think Iraq wasn't a threat.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

[BRussell]

Originally posted by idjeff:
What is everbody's problem with the US invading Iraq? Honest question here...I would like honest answers.

It's an odd question. Shouldn't the question really be "why should we invade Iraq" rather than "why not invade Iraq?"

In any case, here are some reasons:

1. It distracted us from the war on terrorism.
2. t could result in a more anti-American regime in Iraq than was there to begin with.
3. It could unnecessarily increase radical Islamist terrorism against the US.
3. It costs American lives.
4. It costs American money.
5. It reduces international cooperation on the war on terrorism.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't think Iraq wasn't a threat.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

Do you know how ridiculous you look posting neo-con propaganda to back up neo-con policies. Hudson is as neutral as the Iraqi Ministry of Information!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That assertion is, at best, debatable. The Iraqis, in particular, would seem not to agree. Who would be better able to judge whether or not the situation is better than the Iraqis themselves?

I don't doubt that it looks worse from the inside. Particularly for people of a nation that hasn't really had its own rule in over 1500 years, and whose current incarnation (the Iraq we know today, post-Ottoman Empire) was formed not out of any sort of mandate of the masses, but some distant politician's sense of geopolitical aesthetics. They want their own country, and they want it now.

But nation-building takes time. I would not expect a people who haven't been able to go through that process in over a thousand years to understand that. But even under the best of circumstances that can take upwards of a decade (the US took that long twice, post-Revolution and post-Civil War). Japan and West Germany post-WWII took less time, but even these took at least five years by just about any estimate, and these are considered to have been positively meteoric rises from the proverbial ashes.

It's been a year and a half since the invasion. In that time, an interim government has been set up, general elections have been set for early next year (just shy of the two-year mark), the previous dictator is on trial for his crimes, and the infrastructure is well on its way to getting back on its feet. At this rate, Iraq may well set a new speed record for nation-building, and yet people call it a quagmire.

Of course there is a resistance. There is always resistance; it happened in Germany, Japan, the US, and many other nations throughout history. But it will fall, as they always do.