During the build up to war, Bush and Blair claimed that Iraq was a threat to the West and to wrld peace in general. They claimed that the invasion of Iraq was the only way to neutralise Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and prevent them from falling into terrorist hands. According to them, the war with Iraq was intended to be part of the 'War on Terror', and was to be an example of what would happen to states who sponsored terrorism or threatened world stability.

Now the war is over, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and no links to terrorist groups have been proven, the emphasis has radically shifted. Retrospective justification of the war is now centred on the 'liberation' of Iraq from the Baath part regime - something that was a side issue during the build-up to war.

Now the war is largely over, how far do you think humanitarian concern for a people under the yoke of a dictator contributed to British and American motives for the invasion of Iraq?

This war had nothing to do with a concern for anybody but our own regardless of which excuse you pick as a reason to invade another country (UN resolutions, WMD, liberation, saddam's bad hairpiece, etc).

This had everything to do with the US spreading it's wings to make sure we have a presence in a region we can't trust other countries to manage. We picked the easiest target against the most hated (although, not the most dangerous) so the backlash would be minimal.

It's about oil, but it's not about us sucking out their reserves and carting them off (otherwise, we could have just went to Venezuela).

That region will get more unstable before it gets more stable. And without us there to keep them in check, our reliance on oil becomes a big problem. So, we stick our foot in the door, maintain a presence, and threaten anybody with destruction that doesn't play well with others. Hence, we force some semblance of stability.

To give Bush some credit, it may be a workable solution. That region has thrived on dictatorships for 8000 years, so us being the new dictator should fit quite nicely thank-you-very-much.

I don't. I think that humanitarianism and the liberation of the Iraqi people was a necessary by-product of the war. I find it frustrating that people have lost focus of what our original intent was for invading Iraq, because we should still be looking for that "smoking gun," and if we don't find WMDs in Iraq, that's a huge problem, IMO, particularlly for U.S. credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.

While human rights and concern over humanitarian issues are indeed noble pursuits, the truth is this administration perverted that nobility into nothing more than a red herring. People were abused and murdered in Iraq for decades, but it was never an issue with America unless those pulling the strings were somehow construed as a threat to "American interests," however ambiguous that may be.

This war seems to make that self-evident. Until the threat of terrorism struck home in a major way, there was no rallying cry to end the torture in Iraq. There was little talk of the torture and liberation at the first sound of alarm. Instead we had Weapons of Mass Destruction and contributions to terrorism... and we were seemingly going to allow the torture, rapes and murders to continue so long as evidence of disarmament was provided.

Only in the eleventh hour, as it became more and more clear the initial reasons wouldn't hold up to domestic or international scrutiny, did the emphasis truly begin the transition into Iraqi liberation. And they played it for all it was worth in the short time before the first bombing. They stooped low enough to refer to the Iraqi people as slaves, as I recall.

And while it may seem difficult to denounce the actions of the administration in Iraq when such a noble cause is being paraded around, it would be foolish to forget exactly what role humanitarian issues played in this war: it was merely a tool of propaganda, better conducted than any from the Iraqi Information Ministry, but little better in purpose.

In the final analysis I think people have to ask themselves a few of questions about this war.....

1. Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were a month or two ago?

2. Is the world a better place because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power?

3. Is the Middle East a more stable region with Saddam gone?

The people of Iraq are certainly better off today than while under Saddam. I'm not sure there was ever any question as to whether they would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Is the world a better place? The effect is probably negligible. Iraq may be better, but Iraq played little role in international affairs. As great a threat to international security as the U.S. and Britain tried to make Iraq out to be, it was essentially nothing more than another shadow puppet obscuring the real motives for action. Humanitarian issues was another shadow puppet.

Whether the Middle East is more stable remains to be seen. Other countries in the region are happy that Saddam is gone, but they dislike the idea of an American presence as much as they detested Saddam himself. Even then, just because the governments of Middle Eastern nations remain civil does not necessarily mean the same applies to their people. At the civilian level, intervention in Iraq seems to have racheted up the anti-American sentiment considerably. Still, it ultimately remains to be seen...

1. By who's standards? Comparing to ours, possibly. Comparing it to their culture, who are we to judge?

2. No. Saddam was an idiot, but he was a contained idiot. We could end up with someone worse that we don't know anything about who actually DOES sponsor international terrorism...unlike Saddam.

3. Heck no. The region was unstable enough when they only hated each other.

Looks like a great start for a new topic. I'll answer there.

I think that still remains to be seen. Obviously Saddam was not a good leader, and the people of Iraq suffered under his rule, but we won't really know if the people of Iraq are better off until the rebuilding process begins. My gut feeling is that yes, they will be better off.



Again, that remains to be seen. Saddam Hussein was a negative force in the world. There's no denying that, but as has been proven in the past, it is possible to eradicate one negative force only to be replaced with another. I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to be a negative force in Iraq, but we have stirred up anti-American sentiment in other countries besides Iraq. The question is: Did we eradicate a negative force or did we just displace it. I don't have the answers to that question. Only time can answer it.



That, I'm not so sure about. U.S. presence in the Middle East could further destabilize the region even with Saddam out of power.

I think that the point that Jon Bon is trying to make, though (Jon Bon, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the U.S. went in, controversially, under the premise that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction that they were not supposed to have. It is the UN who made the determination of which weapons Saddam wasn't supposed to have. We haven't yet found that "smoking gun." Doesn't it make sense to question that fact regardless of whether or not the people of Iraq are better off? Don't we need to prove that we were justified in invading Iraq for the reasons that we originally stated so that we remain credible in the world community? It seems like we are trying to shift the focus, because we haven't found those WMDs. Of course, there is still time to find them. I don't want to jump the gun. I just think that those are reasonable questions, and I don't think that we should be raising that victory flag yet.

Liberating the Iraqi people is great, but it's not the end of the story...

I think there are a few more questions people need to ask themselves about this war - though not all can be answered yet:

1. Are we more or less likely to be subject to terrorism within the US as a result of this war?

2. Has the power or popularity of al-Qaeda beeen affected by this war? For better or worse?

3. Are we any closer to apprehending Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" as a result of this war?

4. Have we captured or killed anyone even remotely responsible for planning the September 11 attack as a result of this war?

5. Have any of the root causes of terrorism been addressed by this war?

6. Has this war improved the American economy or in any other way proved beneficial to us on the domestic front?

7. Are the citizens of the United States safer or more secure as a result of this war?

A few weeks ago, I posed a few questions regarding this war in the Re-building International Relationships thread, which could also be asked now:

1. Which international companies will receive contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil industry? What percentage will be Anglo-American and what percentage is from countries which haven't supported the US invasion?

2. What is going to happen to the existing oil contracts held by Russian, French, and Chinese companies?

To which I might add:

3. Will the Iraqi oil industry be privatized? If so, who buys and at what price? If not, what international companies get contracts to help produce the oil? Will they be service contracts ot "shares of profit" contracts?

It will be interesting to see.

[quote=Wertz,Apr 16 2003, 09:44 PM] I think there are a few more questions people need to ask themselves about this war - though not all can be answered yet:

[/quote]
I'm not sure why I should answer your questions when you haven't addressed mine, other than to quote them, but oh well, I'll give yours a shot.....

[quote]1. Are we more or less likely to be subject to terrorism within the US as a result of this war?
[/quote]

Less I think, at least state-sponsored terrorism. We've already seen movement from North Korea towards accepting multi-lateral talks (the US position) and I think Iran and Syria aren't about to condone any attacks against the US at the moment. Syria has gone so far as to ask the UN for inspectors to come into their country. I read a report some time ago, sorry no link to it offhand, that Arafat had ordered the cessation of terror attacks from those under his control lest the US put him in their sights. To be brutally honest, I think the terrorist states are scared to death right now of messing with the US.

[quote]2. Has the power or popularity of al-Qaeda beeen affected by this war? For better or worse?[/quote]

Neither. If anything, we've learned more about them from the intelligence we may have gained in Iraq.


[quote]3. Are we any closer to apprehending Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" as a result of this war?
[/quote]

Most likely neither although we may have disrupted some of his sources of "comfort". (See answer #1)


[quote]4. Have we captured or killed anyone even remotely responsible for planning the September 11 attack as a result of this war?[/quote]

No, not directly at least, but who's to say what sources of intelligence might emerge as a result of this war. Still though, that was not a stated objective to my knowledge for liberating Iraq.


[quote]5. Have any of the root causes of terrorism been addressed by this war?[/quote]

I believe so, at least from the standpoint of the people of Iraq, and at least from the standpoint of what one of my definition of the "root causes" of terrorism is. We have freed 25 Million people from the yokes of oppression, and it is my belief that oppression is one of the root causes of terrorism.

[quote]6. Has this war improved the American economy or in any other way proved beneficial to us on the domestic front?[/quote]

America doesn't go to war to "improve the economy" so this question is irrelevant.

[quote]7. Are the citizens of the United States safer or more secure as a result of this war?[/quote]

Yes, we are. States who sponsor terrorism have seen by demonstration what happens to people like them. There is no question that Saddam sponsored terrorism against other nations, we all know that, even Saddam admitted that with his money for suicide bombers program. States who sponsor terrorism have seen that President Bush says what he means, means what he says and acts accordingly. I really don't think they want to mess with the US right now.


[quote]1. Which international companies will receive contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil industry? What percentage will be Anglo-American and what percentage is from countries which haven't supported the US invasion?[/quote]

I suspect that all the nations that participated in the liberation of Iraq will be encouraged to help the re-building effort in Iraq. The nations who actively opposed it even to the point where they were assisting Saddam, specifically France, Germany, and Russia won't. That could constitute a serious security risk since they have aligned themselves with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

[quote]2. What is going to happen to the existing oil contracts held by Russian, French, and Chinese companies?[/quote]

Hard to say. If they truly were sympathetic to the Iraqi people, they might see fit to eat those contracts, otherwise, they could bring the issue up in the World Court or the UN for money that is owed to them. If it turns out they were violating UN Security Council sanctions though, that's going to be a tough sell. Perhaps they might be able to cash in on some of Saddam's bank accounts contained in their countries.


[quote]3. Will the Iraqi oil industry be privatized? If so, who buys and at what price? If not, what international companies get contracts to help produce the oil? Will they be service contracts ot "shares of profit" contracts?[/quote]

The eventual outcome of this will depend on the Iraqi people and what they and their government decide to do. There is no way to know what the structure of their oil industry will be, but I would assume that they will remain a member of OPEC and sell their oil accordingly. Those are their resources, it is their right to sell them how they choose to sell them.

Some may think that they have gained popularity because the United States is attacking a Muslim country and is killing muslims blah blah blah but i think they are just as unpopualr as they were in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, which was pretty hated.



It has improved the American economy because the uncertainty of war is gone & now that Coalition Troops have basically made Saddam a man without a country, the economy will focus more less on geopolitical issues not just because the war with Iraq is gone, but it seems that North Korea is re-thinking it's stratagy of saber-rattling & how it might experience the same beat down that Saddam & his Elite COUGH Republican Guard took. Yet, domestically, it has riled people who were, from the start, agasinst this war & has caused them to trash city streets & drive police officers to arrest them by the hundreds.

How is this relevant? The topic for debate is: -



I think you are deliberately ignoring the question because you know that the 'liberation' of the Iraqi is nothing more than convenient by-product of an imperialist war.

You honestly believe that in a country the size of Iraq, we're just going to stumble accross WMD's the minute after Baghdad falls? Same with terrorist links



I think it had at least a little to do with it. In his (SotU?) address, he outlined the brutal dictator SH was. Listing many of his humanitarianless practices. I don't think he would have done that, had he not cared at all

--cheers

Actually, yes.

We pre-emptively invaded a country because we deemed it an immediate threat to our national security. Based on that, we should know with 100% certainty that they have them, where they have them, and what they plan to do with them.

Israel rightfully pre-emptively struck it's enemies back in 1967 because they were amassed at it's borders and starting to kill civilians. That threat was immediate and obvious.

This should have been the same, and it's not. So, the reason was shifted to "liberation".

Many of us people who disagree with this invasion and occupation are being labeled as anti-American and traitors because we want to eliminate the most dangerous to our homeland...not who we hate the most.

Saddam is easily the most hated. But you don't topple governments because we don't like them.

Iraq isn't that big... especially when you take into account the fact that much of the north and south of the country has been under Coalition control for the last 12 years. While the entire country is comparable to California, only the smaller, middle portion of the country was under the control of Saddam's regime prior to this war.

Beyond that, it was just in February that Powell demonstrated spy satellites allegedly tracking the mobile units transporting bio-chemical weapons away from facilities before UN inspectors arrived. What happened to all that surveillance? Other claims included the UN inspectors not being allowed to visit certain sites. We now have unrestricted access to any of those sites the administration griped about before.

As to the humanitarian issues... they never even surfaced until the administration decided to take issue with Iraq over their Weapons of Mass Destruction. They certainly don't take issue with the humanitarian issues taking place under some of the governments who are our allies. Just because he spoke about it, doesn't mean it had any significant role in the attack, if any role at all. As I see it, humanitarian issues was a red herring then and it is a red herring now.

I think that sets the standard unrealistically high. Yes, we should have a high degree of certainty and knowledge, and it's a total disgrace that the Bush administration hasn't even tried to meet that standard, but requiring 100% certainty about every little detail would lead to paralysis.

It has only been a few days, and the entire country hasn't even been secured. Coalition troops haven't even set foot on most of the country. Unless Iraq had any weapons set up and ready to go, we won't find anything immediately.

CNN was reporting the middle of last week that US troops had found a few cannisters of Serin gas, but I haven't heard much about that since then. The inbedded reporters do seem to be a little overanxious to report unconfirmed things, so that may have been nothing.

The reason why the "liberation" of Iraq is taking precedence now is because it is the main side-effect of the war. Taking care of the problems that is causing must be our primary concern.



Some people who supported fighting Iraq no doubt had humanitarian reasons for supporting it. However, stated US and British goals had more to do with disarming Iraq and preventing terrorist attacks. Any other reasons were all added much later while they were trying to drum up support.

Americans were concerned for their own well being. Anything else positive that comes from this will be icing.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/17/...main/index.html

An article on the ramping up of the WMD search.

--cheers

There never was a single defining reason for this war. There were many reasons, that when taken together, gave more than enough justification. Global security, terrorist support, WMDs, murderous regime, oil as an economic weapon, just to name a few.

If a country were 'only' guilty of one of these, it's quite possible we wouldn't have moved. When you put the whole package together, this may have been one of the more just wars in history. About the only thing missing so far is the discovery of WMDs that are locked and ready to go. And that search is only just beginning.

To me, even if the war with iraq was fought for oil, it still gives me pride to say i am an american my tax dollars helped SAVE over 10 million people from the brink of destruction with saddam hussein. I dont know how you guys are, but when i see the status fall and iraqis kissing US soliders and anarchy it just makes me proud. By the way i dont want anarchy in any country, to me it is the people of iraq getting their anger out

Admiral holt
Out

And jsut to clarify this persons post. We have found TERRORIST in the country of iraq. But i thought iraq didnt have terrorist :S... Hmmm saddam we are finding out more about you then thought of.

Why was this war fought?

1. For George Bush's desire for vengeance and personal glory.

2. For the betterment of American business such as Halliburton, Rayethon and many others that contributed to the Republican Party and wanted their payback.

3. Because William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Charles Krauthammer, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and a cabal of conservatives and neo-conservatives politicians, press and policy wonks wanted it and waited until they had a president who's desires coincided with their own.

4. Because Iraq is sitting on the world's second largerst oil reserves and we want that controlled by a government friendly to the interests of the United States.

5. Because a large percentage of the American public is gullable, easily deceived and downright stupid and will happily send their sons and daughters off to die if enough rich and powerful people tell them they should because it's the right thing to do.

6. To stick it to the French, Germans and the United Nations as a reminder that it's our world and they just live in it---as long as we allow them to.

7. Because Saddam Hussein had an address and Osama bin Laden does not.

8. To scare the crap out of the rest of the Middle East, the North Koreans and anybody else that the U.S.A. can kick butt when it sets its mind to it.

9. Because George Bush doesn't want to be a one-term president like his dad.

Why is it that so many liberals label Americans who don't agree with them as 'stupid'? Or is it only done on message boards? Just in the past two days I've seen it here by two different posters. Prior to that I recall as many as 5 others who have used similar labels.

If that's the way you have to defend your positions then I don't think they can be very defensible. There is a solid core of posters here whose positions I disagree with for the most part. Most of them have identified themselves as liberals. I think their beliefs are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid.

I've read many conservative writers who predict this labeling by liberals whenever they are faced with opposition to their views. Some say it is the core for many liberal ideas in the first place, 'only we know what is good for you'.

Maybe one of the 'enlightened' can open up another topic and share with stupid Americans like myself why they have all the answers and we dummies should all be thankful they've come to save us.

As far as brutal dictatorships, there are many we still support. Iraq was quite rich before the first Gulf War. Higher education, including for women, not forced to Islamic dress or other constraints, was free, as was health care. My point is that in comparison to other Mid East dictatorships, Iraqis were living very well until sanctions.

Sharon is one of the most brutal leaders on the planet, yet we will wage wars for Israel. The same brutality goes for Saudi Arabia, North Korea, we can talk about Mugabe in Zimbabwe, as well as many others. I am suspect that suddenly the poor Iraqis are a major concern to the Administration who care little about poor Americans to start with.

I think the gullable comment can be justified, in relation to the lies that were believed by many about the reasons for the war. None of the evidence held up and still does not, so far. What we are left with is liberation of poor Iraqi's, which simply does not hold up either in the overall picture.

Ending the sanctions and setting up an international tribunal to monitor and prosecute weapons dealers of the various countries that continue arming the third world could have gone farther to solve the problem, as well as many others. It would have been less costly and been more positive in the War on Terrorism than an invasion under false pretext, with possibility of extended wars in the region. Once again to Sharon, he sure is hailing us to go on, despite that his own war has accomplished nothing. (not to sidetrack the issue)

From what I've seen, the posts in question have addressed Americans in general, not simply the Americans who don't agree with their positions. Why might they find the American public to be generally gullible or "stupid"...?

More Statistics and Talking Points

American education is horrendous compared to industrialized nations throughout the world. The opinion of Americans being "stupid" (as harsh as it sounds) tends to be supported.

It's sad when health officials try to send out useful information for American safety and they have to worry about whether or not the general public can even read, much less understand, the content of the mailing.
Health Literacy During Anthrax Scare

When the facts speak it isn't necessary to take things quite so personally.

This doesn't directly apply to why the war on Iraq was fought, but it applies to why so many may have supported the war. The reasons for war abounded throughout the entire build-up. Yet, under it all, administration officials clearly stated that inspections weren't necessary, treating the people better wasn't necessary... the only goal was regime change. Clearly, though, they didn't want to just say that and leave it at that for the American people. So you get a bunch of garbage about WMDs and send the weapons inspectors in... but for what? You've already stated that you're going in if there isn't a change in regime, so why carry on the charade?

Because despite all the executive powers and megalomania, the American people can still turn on you. But so long as you give them a few soundbytes and slogans to rile 'em up, you maintain their support. Afterall, how many of the illiterate or nearly illiterate Americans are going to scour CNN and the BBC for reports highlighting contradicting American statements? How many of them are going to look into think-tanks (American Enterprise Institute, Project for a New American Century, and others) whispering sweet nothings of a Pax-Americana in Dubya's ear...?

The short answer: not many, if any at all.

Now, if this many people struggle just in their reading, you can imagine how difficult it is for them to understand what they finally do manage to read. You couple this with the short attention span of the average American and you've got yourself the perfect crowd to pander to from a position of power (such as the Oval Office or Pentagon). Many Americans, as a byproduct of this lack of knowledge, are going to support "arguments of authority" without question and without critical thinking. If no WMDs are found in Iraq it won't matter. It won't matter because the people have been liberated and that's all this group of people will remember or care about.

It won't matter how little a role humanitarian issues played at the start of the war, or throughout the course of it. As long as the people in power tell them it mattered, they'll assume it did, without looking back on the original intents and purposes. All that mattered, when you examine the documents and statements from the administration, was regime change. WMDs, whether an actual threat or not, was as much a red herring as the humanitarian issues. But it's unlikely many Americans can read or even understand that... much less figure out why I'm talking about red fish.

While I think that the lack of intellectual discipline of the American people is a key factor in how we, as a country, found ourselves prosecuting a war in Iraq, I feel that the pursuit of that particular subject is straying from the topic here a bit. I have, therefore, started a new thread on the subject which (for those of you who can read this) can be found here.

I do not claim to have cornered the market on intelligence and I haven't come to save or enlighten anyone.

It's only my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

I believe that a depressing number of my fellow Americans blindly accept the words of politicians, military brass, bureaucrats, pundits and other talking heads merely because they have a degree and a title.

Yeah, I DO believe too many Americans aren't mentally fit and are all too happy to let somebody else do the thinking for them. When I hear people say, "Well, he's the president and he has all these experts that can give him information we don't have so we have to trust in his judgement" I just want to SCREAM!!!!

Get a library card and read a BOOK for heaven's sake. Stop cruising for free porn and find some web sites that might actually inform you instead of confirming the opinions you already hold. Turn off "Fear Factior" and "Survivor" and watch something that might make you a little smarter instead of numbing your brain for 60 minutes.

Go meet the clowns who are running for city council, the mayor's office or Congress and ask them some tough questions. Don't be a freakin' lump on a log. Roll up your sleeves and find something you believe in and fight for it.

But most people won't. They would rather wait and hope somebody else does something about the world. It never occurs to them that THEY are that "someone else."

This war happened because it was supposed to happen. It would have happened even without the events of 9/11 but that gave the advocates for a war in Iraq the premise they needed.

Now you can disagree with that take on what prompted the war. I don't really care. What I DO care about is people stop being so slavish and fawning to authority figures and start doing some critical thinking.

Democracy is NOT a specator sport. Questioning authority is NOT "anti-American." Remembering that we elect a President and do not elevate kings is an important decision. Being a lemming is NOT a good thing and NOT following the herd is.

That is MY explanation of how to avoid being a Stupid American. If that sounds like liberal elitism, I'm sorry, but there it is.


And with that thought in mind, I'm changing my signature line accordingly.

I will not take part in hijacking this thread. This one quote however I think is part of this discussion.



Please, after 12+ years of sanctions and inspections explain to me where you get this evidence that this war was supposed to happen?

That is like saying WWIII will happen. Now tell me I am wrong, and then prove it.

You're wrong. Here's the proof.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statemen...fprinciples.htm

Please note the names of the signees to this statement. You may recognize some of them. In 1997, they were trying to get President Clinton to embrace their philosophy. In 2000, the Supreme Court gave them George W. Bush and they got a President that did.

For another viewpoint on the Project For the New American Century here's a link:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5455

How exactly did Iraq become the Number One Priority of the Bush Administration? Because somebody MADE it the Number One Priority. It doesn't hurt to have the Secretary of Defense, Vice-President and even the president's brother all whispering sweet nothings in his ear on how to eliminate Saddam and boost American dominance of the world stage in one fell swoop.

Wars don't happen just by accident. It takes a well organized and financed cabal of politicians, business leaders, bureaucrats, media stooges and intellectuals all flying on the right wing to stage-manage events into taking the course they deem best. And damned if it doesn't work.

The question was asked before the war began but it's still valid now: it's important to know WHO wanted this war and WHY did they want it? Big clue: It's not for truth, justice and The American Way.

To answer the question which opened this thread:

Not in the least. Not for a second. Apart from PR considerations, humanitarian concern on the part of either administration is a lie. A desperate, sick lie, at that.

I have made my opinion regarding the motivation behind this war abundantly clear elsewhere on this board - and it has been reiterated and supported here by others. This war was about extending American hegemony. That's what it was about when it was being planned in 1998, that's what it was about when it was being ramped up in 2002, that's what it was about when we invaded, that's what it is about now.

Aquilla: I wasn't ignoring your questions any more than I was expecting you to answer my own. I took yours as somewhat rhetorical - for the consideration of those reading this thread. I simply felt that a few more questions should be added by way of balance.

To answer them, if I must, as of 1:45am DST, 19 April, 2003:

1. Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were a month or two ago? No, they are not.
2. Is the world a better place because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? No, it is not.
3. Is the Middle East a more stable region with Saddam gone? No, it most certainly is not.


I keep hearing this sort of thing a lot now, so I'm not picking on you, P51 - you just happen to have distilled a lot of the arguments I've been encountering r/t.

I'll ask you the same questions I ask my friends and colleagues: By what stretch of whose imagination was Iraq a threat to "global security"? And how does the removal of a tyrant who has been dormant for more than a decade in any way inprove that security? Where are these WMDs? Why weren't they used during the war? Since when do we care about murderous regimes? If we're supposed to be so concerned about human rights, why don't we stop funding terrorism elsewhere? Why don't we stop supporting similarly murderous regimes that happen to have governments which are friendly to American business? Why don't we - for one single nanosecond - stop being such god-damned HYPOCRITES? Oil as an economic weapon? I thought we were the ones using oil as an economic weapon. Isn't that what the economic sanctions were all about?

About the only thing missing so far is justification for any of your "defining reasons".

Wrong. People free to protest. Walk the street without being confronted by goons. Speak their minds. They are certainly no worse off. When the sanctions are lifted (soon) they will be much better off. The main thing is that SH is gone, making the average Iraqis life 100% better.


Wrong. The guy ran torture chambers, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists. Even leaving out WMDs, the world is better without scum (sorry, irresponsible leaders, for the apologists out there) like SH.


Strike three. No terrorism since the war started. More nations are talking with the US. I really think there is a new-found respect for the American military that wasn't there before. Maybe we can call it "Scared Straight", but if it works, I am all for it.

Question the motives, but do not question the outcomes, which are all positive.

amlord, you are right on target with the results thus far. I laughed when certain 'unbiased' journalists began to wring their hands over the protests in Iraq. That very ability to protest is one of the surest signs of how much better off they are today, and will be tomorrow.

Improved security for certain. All those involved in terrorism must factor in the potential US response in a way they haven't had to for decades. North Korea's pre and post-war positions and Syria's apparent change of heart are two very public examples. You can be sure there are many many more behind the scenes adjustments being made.

It is our duty now, here at home, to insure we keep in office those who will continue to build on this success. Those who can be trusted with our security are readily identified, as are those who seek to undermine it to re-gain office. The 'war' on the homefront is no less important than the one we've fought in Iraq.

Yeah, and no hurricanes either. Irrelevant? Exactly. The question is not whether terrorism has actually occurred since the war started, but whether it's more likely to occur, and I don't think either side can claim victory on this point yet. If it's too soon to declare failure in the search for WMD it's also too soon to declare victory in the war on terror.



You misspelled "fewer". Those few who are still talking are not being heeded, and the rest - noticing that - have given up.



Yeah, I'd be all for it if it worked too, but in the long term it doesn't. Sure, there's more respect for the US military, but there's less for the US administration. What we have created instead of respect is fear, tinged with disdain (among our ex-allies) or hatred (everywhere else). Those are not feelings that lead to greater stability.

Zippo. We did this war to save our own tushes from another 9/11-like attack, going by the officially declared missions to get Hussein, stop WMD development/deployment, and end the support of terrorist groups.

Nobody was talking about freeing Iraq until the war actually started. That notion got spun in on the fly.

But what were the real reasons for this war? What motivated British, US, and Australian leaders?

Ah, now that is a good question. I don't have a clue. All I know is what these leaders have decided to tell me, and I know they are not to be trusted to tell the truth. So, I have to try to infer what the truth is as they feed me official lines of doody.

But, being an optimist, I'm looking around for the pony.

Let's see, notable would be North Korea and Syria. Both have changed their tunes since the war started, for the better I might add. France, Canada, and Germany are all trying to get into the US's good graces.

Syria is key, in my opinion, because it is the base of multiple, large terrorist organizations. If its government starts to get antsy, it can put the pressure on these groups to rethink their strategy or be ousted from Syria.

These people now know that we are serious about ending state-run terrorism (even though Iraq was a minor contributor to this, the stated goals of the war make it clear that the terrorism link was driven home to countries like Syria).

We have different perspectives on exactly what tune they are singing, but I won't address that here. One thing I would like to point out is that Iraq had supposedly changed their tune since the war in Afghanistan as well. Within months that "spun" back out of control and we found some 300,000 service men fighting half a world away.

All the inspectors and documents regarding WMDs were useless when approaching the Iraq situation last year. The entire time, behind the television cameras, administration officials were already admitting that it didn't matter. Regime change was it.

And now there are talks with Syria and inspectors being invited into Syria. Are we really concerned with the terrorist groups or suspected WMDs in the country, as we were similarly led to believe before the previous war? Or are there other reasons being discussed, again, behind the television cameras that will emerge once the spin has died down?

Don't get too used to the tune. I don't trust the DJ.

Syria has deeper ties to terrorism than any other country, except Iran (and the former gov't of Afghanistan). What they say and how they act is extremely important to how the rest of the ME will react following this war, and the way terrorist organizations are treated in the ME.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but Iraq continued to defy the UN, the US, the inspectors and pretty much anyone else until the day the regime ended. They never submitted proof as to the cessation of their WMD programs, or to the fate of the WMDs that they were documented to have possessed.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm not so sure, personally. The war in Iraq was supposed to influence how the rest of the ME would react to begin with. Now ME reaction is shifting from the toppling of Saddam to how Syria will react to it. Just from my personal perspective, ranging from public reasons for war to ME reaction, there seems to be quite a bit of shuffling going on.

Now, while I don't think this has been necessarily off topic, I'll steer back to one of the original questions:

I still say none, though it was a productive consequence that looks good on television. I wonder, though... right now we are hearing about Syria and terrorists, Syria and possible weapons of mass destruction, and Syria possibly harboring refugees from Saddam's regime. At what point might we hear about the humanitarian issues in Syria? Or better yet, how long until we hear about the humanitarian issues in supposedly allied nations such as Egypt?

Other issues aside, it appears humanitarian issues aren't given a glimmer, much less a spotlight, of attention unless there are other issues which will serve "American interests." Whether this was evident in the move on Iraq or not, I do think it's made quite evident in our silence as it pertains to allies.

The humanitarian issue is a nice by-product, not a justification in and of itself.

Humanitarian work is for private individuals (in my Conservative opinion) not the work of government. When it comes to other nations, humanitarian issues are certainly not among our top priorities. It was not used as a justification for this war. Bush may have referred to Iraqi freedom or somesuch, but we all know the reasons here were NOT humanitarian.

BTW, Egypt is no ally. Mubarik can barely hold onto his position, let alone get any Egyptians on our side. The Egyptian press (state-run) is one of the worst examples of anti-American slander you will find anywhere. I seem to recall an anecdote (actually it was a news account or editorial) about humanitarian aid to Egypt, something about us giving aid to Egypt (bread, I think) to make them like us. When the press attacks continued, we stopped sending the bread (realizing it was a failed program). The Egyptian press then used that as further fodder that the Americans hate Muslims and were trying to starve them to death. I don't know if we still send them bread...

Anyway, I think we can flat out state that humanitarian reasons will not be used in a case against Syria (if it ever comes to that).

Amlord, holy cow!

Operation Iraqi Freedom

How can anyone trust someone who says one thing but means another? How can we ever tell what is really meant? Egads, man, you're starting to sound positively liberal , or at least doubtful

It's not liberal, its libertarian (-leaning). I am all for limiting government, including limiting the military to the role of promoting the defense. The military should NOT be used for humanitarian efforts, or foreign policy of any kind.

I see this war as one of pro-active self-defense, and thus justifiable. The humanitarian angle (and wrong-headed naming the operation along that line) is a side note, at best.

We fought the latest Iraq war to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to hopefully gain a more powerful position in the Middle East vis a vis our economic competitors and our enemies or adversaries in the immediate gulf region.

We fought in the name of the war on terror and allowed our president to make baseless allegations that Hussein's regime was directly connected to Al-Qaeda.

We fought to establish a new open ended proactive doctrine of limiting weaker countries from holding or establishing WMDs to make the world safer for our interests.

I would have voted against it.

How does this make the world safer?

Does India nuke Pakistan pre-emptively to defend itself?

does North Korea invade the South to defend itself?

Does Turkey invade northern Iraq to defend itself?

Countries have been invading other countries for thousands of years for what they consider "righteous" reasons. Iraq went to war with Iran trying to reclaim land belonging to them (at least, in their eyes it was). Palestinian thugs are murderering innocent Israelis for a cause they consider "righteous?

How are we any kind of moral authority anymore to say what's right and wrong? The argument that this was self-defense is absurd beyond words. The idea that this war had anything to do with the war on terror is even more ridiculous. Unless you believe Saddam's boys flew airplanes into our buildings. If so, don't feel bad...you have plenty of company.

Hey, here's a gut check - Ashcroft claimed 100's of terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 911.

How many were Iraqi? Excuse me?? I can't hear you...

It would be unbelievable to think that the administration could have found ONE solid link between Iraq and international terrorists and not told us. But they didn't because it never has existed. They are 0 fer 2 years in establishing a link between international terrorism and Iraq.

But in any event, it doesn't matter. we've just proven that we are no different than the despots that have been running over other countries for the last 8000 years. We found a reason to invade and occupy a country to serve our purposes and did it. We can find 8 million tons of WMD for all I care, but I've said all along it doesn't matter. Saddam never has used the stuff outside of the Iran/Iraq war. We kicked his butt twice and he's never used them. He's had 12 years when nobody was looking to start sponsoring international terrorism and sell the crap to terrorists. Yet he never did.

Finally, I'm not a hypocrite. Unlike Bush, I do not think Islam is a religion of peace. I think "freeing" 20 million more Muslims is freeing up 20 million more Muslims ready to kill us. You may say that these Muslims are different to serve your own purposes, but they are still Muslims. We were far better off with these people contained as they always have been. Saddam didn't play the international game. But maybe his people will now that they have the opportunity.

Let's get this topic back on track:



We have many other threads to discuss Muslims and American hypocrisy. Let's keep this one to the humanitarian aspect.

Sorry...I was following the title of the thread...

"Why was the War on Iraq Fought"

Amlord,



Understood--if Harry Browne had his way, we would not have gotten into the position of the Iraq war in the first place. Our military would be much smaller than it is. And we'd not be concerned with humanitarian efforts anywhere in the world except here in the USA.

But that's not the case, and decades of history can't be wiped away just like that. In addition, humanitarian efforts done today can have positive returns tomorrow--or so I suppose the reasoning goes in the Bush administration. Guess we are stuck with big and bigger government, big and bigger military, and trying to mop up after protecting the homeland from Saddam Hussein.

I do sympathize with some of the Libertarian takes on this whole situation, but I'm afraid the scene has to be fully played out before any government shrinking can be attempted. I do think there are better ways to carry out humanitarian efforts, but that would mean making it a top priority--which it isn't.

As far as US "humanitarian concern for a people under the yoke of a dictator" goes, I thought the motivation was the "War on terrorism", er, uh, I mean "Weapons of mass destruction", oh no, that's not it, I'll get it right in a minute...oh yeah, the "Liberation of the Iraqi people." Wonder what the story will be in another couple of months.

Lemontrail, welcome to AD!

This site attaracts an unusually large number of libertarians, doesn't it?

You should put your response in the quotes in a different color, or something. It threw me there for a sec.

Your economic analogy is a bit flawed, since it was Saddam's window we were breaking and if Iraqi's pay for reconstruction, then it is a win for the American economy (sarcasm there).

Al Qaeda remains the biggest target in the "war" on terrorism. I don't believe anyone claimed that terrorism would end with the fall of Saddam.

I'm sorry, but the clause, "Now that the war is largely over" is something I do not believe. The President did not say the war is over during his famous speech on the aircraft carrier. The most recent installment of his invasion plans has been completed. There are more countries to conquer. More countries that harbor terrorists.

Surely there are innocent people subjected to tyranny and who long for freedom in Syria, Iran and/or Saudi Arabia. That's the beauty of this, there will always be somewhere else to go and do this because the terrorists are hell-bent on getting back at the 'Great Satan' by blowing themselves up and taking Americans with them and keeping Americans
p----d off.

It plays right into the hand of our Commander-in-Chief. I would not be surprised if we were still at war around election time. Red, white and blue sells. And even though (or because) the soldiers are usually worse off than civilians economically, they will gladly accept the hazardous duty pay that comes with invading another country. Don't put those yellow ribbons away just yet!

The humanitarian reasons are a nice touch, especially if Bush was going to do this anyway.

(Edited for readability)