Did we have justification?

[MartialArtist68]

Were we justified in going into Iraq? NO!

Here is an article stating how the quality of life has deteriorated since we came into power...
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=4451

We either failed miserably or the main goal wasn't to help those people.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0309f.asp <-- an article about how we were "justified" goint into Iraq. GWB lies again...

So now, with thousands of Americans dead, several terrorist and rebel attacks on Iraqi soil, and many other anomolies, we are left with a smaller country in shambles and a larger one against it's very core--the president (for the most part).

One interesting comment I heard from the locals here in Southern Indiana was that we should just "nuke the h*** outta..." and I'm just going to stop there...

Sigh... I feel better now...

Best wishes,
pck

 

[lonecoyote]

Finally! Let's all stop dancing around the subject. No, we were not justified in invading Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was a bad guy but no worse than than all the bad guys the US has supported in the past, present, and into the future. Someone on another thread got "disgusted" with me as I wrote that Iraq doesn't want what we have to give. I think they thought I should feel that it was a bright and shining day for Iraq (the fake handover) and they even compared the Iraqis to American Revolutionaries rather than a bunch of people who had just been screwed royally. Democracy or majority rule would probably give them theocracy. That's fine with me but our government won't tolerate it. Democracy will never be a reality for them and they may not want it anyway, even if they got a look at it. They should have been left alone. Better for us and for them too. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. What will happen now is brave young men and women getting killed, a U.S. puppet, billions of dollars, decades of lasting hatred. We should leave. We have already failed, we failed on the first day when we invaded and will fail to a greater degree the longer we stay in Iraq. But how can we leave now, with no exit strategy? Why is there no exit strategy? Because Bush and company never planned to leave! I'm not naive, I understand that Iraq was really about the whole middle east. We were killing the chicken to frighten the monkey. But all it has done is fill the monkey with hatred. Kerry will keep us over there all through his administration if he wins, too. He will make the same mistakes Bush has made. This has nothing to do with the military. A lot of my family members and friends have been and are serving. Just because one doesn't support the war in Iraq doesn't mean that don't admire and respect the brave people who are serving their country.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Were we justified in going into Iraq? NO!

Well... I disagree.

Here is an article stating how the quality of life has deteriorated since we came into power...

They are still in transition so of course things aren't all better yet. It's still a war zone. This is like saying Russia isn't better because they moved to a democratic society, even after 15 years. Yes they will suffer for a while. They will be better but it will take time.

WhiteBirch

 

[MartialArtist68]

That's exactly right; it will probably get better. It also may not. The thing you are overlooking is that there are WAY more rebel groups than there were before, except for different reasons. Besides fifteen years is a long time.

And after putting more thought into it, there are two sides to the coin on this whole "presence of WMDs" in Iraq:

1) Saddam had no weapons for whatever reason

2) Saddam had TIME to hide the weapons BECAUSE WE GAVE HIM A DATE and a TIME.

 

[Gary Crawford]

Please also take note that Saddam funded Lybia's nuclear weapons program.Why do you think after we invaded Iraq that lybia decided to surrender them to us?

 

[loki09789]

That's exactly right; it will probably get better. It also may not. The thing you are overlooking is that there are WAY more rebel groups than there were before, except for different reasons. Besides fifteen years is a long time.

And after putting more thought into it, there are two sides to the coin on this whole "presence of WMDs" in Iraq:

1) Saddam had no weapons for whatever reason

2) Saddam had TIME to hide the weapons BECAUSE WE GAVE HIM A DATE and a TIME.

THe thing that doesn't get a lot of press is things like local Army Corps of Engineer volunteers building schools and other public works/services buildings for the the local Iraqi people to use to build their own future.

There is a distinction between SHussein not being proven to having WMD's and the idea that they weren't there before....We didn't just give him a Date, we gave him 11 years of "Screw you" tolerance when he hassled and blocked inspectors that he agreed to by signing the treaty at the end of the first gulf war.

There is also only real evidence that rebel/terrorists groups are actively operating since the ousting of SHussein. I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible that

A: These rebel groups were not reported to the world by SHussein's government because of embarrassment,

B: SHussein's gov. looked the other way to these outside influenced groups because of a 'strange bed fellows' dealing of some kind existed between His government (or at least the local political leader as in Mayor or other officials getting their pockets lined.)

C: Part of the rebel/terror resistance is because the current martial rule type of situation because of the war state is interferring with their black market business and ability to do business as usual (Drugs and Terror groups have been clearly linked for a long time).

THough it is possible that these groups moved into the area to do some "Infidel hunting", I doubt very strongly that the volume all moved in and set up shop as quickly as they did without some of them being pre-war emplaced for what ever reason.

No real evidence, just some homespun logic of how practical it is to try and sneak explosives, guns and such INTO a controlled combat zone. Now if they were already there, but lying low or in cahoots with local authorities or even the Central SHussein gov, the speed and number of incidents seems more logical to me.

To me, it is the same idea as saying that the Russian mafia only moved in and set up shop after the fall of the USSR....no, they were there all along. THe government under the USSR (and SHussein) were not known for an "open an honest" policy about internal embarassments.

Can you make military/political moves based on this kind of thinking? No.

BUT

I still say that we had every reason to go into Iraq but that the reasoning should have been based on the non compliance of SHussein and been done after some very overt diplomatic contacts that reiterrated the treaty terms, and given him 'one more chance' so to speak.

I still say that the timing of taking the political support and dividing military assets between Iraq and Afg so quickly was confusing and poor judgement.

I would say that we were justified, but that the public explanation wasn't the correct one to maintain public support/acceptance to any degree because of the tenuous link (there is a 'logical' one there but not an evidencial one) between the two efforts.

Iraq could have waited IMO. Hell, LET the terrorists start running and maneuvering/communicating with Iraq if it was going to happen. Collect as much hard data as possible to reveal the dealings betweent the two and then move in....sort of giving them enough political rope to hand themselves.

 

[Raewyn]

If Iraq had no oil, but had suposed weapons of mass destruction would America have still gone to war?????? Our petrol prices over here have risen dramatically since the war began.
There are still countries that have worse dictators than Saddam, what is America doing about those????

PS Dont mean to offend anyone with these comments! If I have.

 

[loki09789]

The issue of oil can not be trivialized. OPEC sets the international market prices even if US oil generally comes from US sources. How does the US presence in Iraq directly influence OPEC driven prices? It doesn't. If it did the spike in gas prices (and the millions of petroleum based products that we use every day and some, quite literally, can't live without) were due to war, why didn't the prices spike like this during the first gulf war when SHussein set the oil fields on fire?

Along those same lines, should we have left such an important international market controlling asset in the control of an obviously corrupt man? Remember that, unlike the NY Stock Exchange - which is influence/regulated to avoid another crash - but private business influenced, the oil fields in Iraq were under the direct influence of SHussein.

Could/can things be handled better, always - regardless of who is in office. I can guarentee that if Kerry gets the job, he will fall flat on his face in someone's eyes because of inflated expecations and the reality of who and what any administration is dealing with over there.

Just because SHussein isn't the only bad guy out there doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing something about something. We don't sit on our hands about local crime do we? No, we train in martial arts/self defense. Some here have served in the military or are/were LEO. No one person or country can do everything, but that should not be an excuse to sit back and let someone who signed a treaty get away with ignoring his signed agreement.

 

[Makalakumu]

My Case Against Iraq

As of this date, we have been given four reasons to support the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration has claimed the following: Iraq had large stockpiles of WMD that they were selling to terrorits, Iraq was supporting Al-qaeda, Iraq was an imminent threat, and that Saddam was a murderous dicator that gassed his own people.

These justifications were given to us and we were told that by removing Saddam Huissain we would be safer. I do not believe that we are any safer for the following reasons…

Regarding the WMD in Iraq, Iraq had them at one time, but did not have them when we invaded. Inspectors were beginning to catch on this fact, but the Bush Administration did not wait for their full report.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

This information is repeated in the 911 commissions report, in Richard Clarkes book and in a new book named “Nuclear Terrorism” which was written by Graham Allison.

As far as the terrorists go, the 911 Commision’s report states that no connections to 911 or Al-qaeda have been found. Although Iraq did support some terrorist acts in Isreal, this is a far cry from the terrorism the Saudis or other countries support worldwide.

"Riyadh has not yet fully joined the international effort to block bank accounts thought to be financing terrorist operations, U.S. officials say. But the Bush administration, fearful of offending the Saudis, has not yet raised a public complaint. Elaine Sciolino, et al., “U.S. is Reluctant to Upset Flawed, Fragile Saudi Ties,” New York Times, October 25, 2001

They were not even close to the worst offenders when it came to supporting terrorism. Granted, Iraq did support suicide bombers in Isreal and many innocents died because of this, but at the same time, so did Lebonon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, ect...

Consider the following about Iraq, before you think that it was this huge threat to our security.

"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991." Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003. Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003

"Iraq never threatened U.S.security. Bush officials cynically attacked a villainous country because they knew it was easier than finding the real 9/11 villain, who had no country. And now they're hoist on their own canard." Maureen Dowd, "We’re Not Happy Campers," The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

"Iraq never threatened the US, let alone Australia. The basic consideration was and remains the perception of America's wider strategic interest in the Middle East." Richard Woolcott, "Thread bare Basis To The Homespun Yarn That Led Us Into Iraq," Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2003—(Woolcott was Australia’s Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs And Trade during the first Gulf War.)

And then there is the question regarding the humanitarian nature of this mission. There seems to be a dubious double standard where this is concerned. Lets look into Iraq’s history…Perhaps we should ask where Saddam came from, how he got those weapons, and what the US response was at that time these atrocities were committed.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-18-98.html

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html

And then there is the question of what actually happened during the infamous gassing event...and this is very interesting...

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

Apparently we are left with some serious doubt in this situation. Either way, the US was heavily involved in the skullduggery against Iran and wasn't too concerned when the event initially happened. In the end, the US helped Saddam get to power and we KNEW what kind of leader he would be.

Regardless, the humanitarian effort is the Bush Administrations strongest justification for the war. History has told us that at one time we didn’t care what Saddam did and that now we do. Now, at the very least, Saddam is gone. The atrocities that can be pinned on him are still bad beyond belief and are reason enough for America to take a little pride.

Yet, shouldn’t we have a little different priority list when it comes to threats? Has the Iraq war made us safer when all of this manpower and capital could be used to eliminate greater threats to our security? As a martial artist concerned about my safety in the War on Terror, I would say, no.

upnorthkyosa

 

[lvwhitebir]

I still say that we had every reason to go into Iraq but that the reasoning should have been based on the non compliance of SHussein and been done after some very overt diplomatic contacts that reiterrated the treaty terms, and given him 'one more chance' so to speak.
...
I would say that we were justified, but that the public explanation wasn't the correct one to maintain public support/acceptance to any degree because of the tenuous link (there is a 'logical' one there but not an evidencial one) between the two efforts.

I agree that the reason for going in was non-compliance with the 12-year-old UN resolution. That was our first intention until the UN disagreed. We then had to come up with other reasons.

I think waiting 12 YEARS was long enough for him to comply with the MULTIPLE UN resolutions against him, especially since the original estimate by the inspectors was a lousy 1 year.

So, let's see. Hussein invades Kuwait and is beaten back. The world "fines" him for his actions. He thumbs his nose at everyone because he believes that if he waits long enough, we'll just forget about it and move on. It worked for the past 12 years; he kicked out the inspectors for a few years and what happened, we bombed a stupid factory, after hours; we imposed embargos and he took everything from his people and cried that they were starving. Have we really forgotten what he did to start all this? Do we punish the police because they arrest someone 12 years after their horrific crime?

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

If Iraq had no oil, but had suposed weapons of mass destruction would America have still gone to war?????? Our petrol prices over here have risen dramatically since the war began.
There are still countries that have worse dictators than Saddam, what is America doing about those????

PS Dont mean to offend anyone with these comments! If I have.

I guess not. N. Korea, Iran and others have admitted to having WMDs and threated to use them. They don't really have the resources to make action against them worth it and they didn't try to have daddy offed. The idea that the the military action against Iraq is justified on a human rights basis or on WMD basis fails a comparitive test. The only qualification is that Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to inspect and had agreed to not have WMDs after the first Gulf War, which from what I can see, he followed. This was a trumped up war. I can however personally jusify the war in Afghanistan. Which consequently is going smoother and is seemingly more successful.

 

[OULobo]

Have we really forgotten what he did to start all this? Do we punish the police because they arrest someone 12 years after their horrific crime?

WhiteBirch

Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job. Second, it isn't that I have a problem punishing someone who broke the rules, but how about all the other criminals that GW seems to be ignoring, despite the fact that they commited crime 12 years ago and are still committing crimes today. If you are going to enforce a law, your have to enforce it on everyone, not just the ones that took a shot a Dad.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

OULobo - very succinctly put!

 

[Flatlander]

You know, the original question - Did we have justification?

Which we?

The USA? The 'coalition of the willing'? No. They are not mandated (as OULobo already posted) to unilaterally enforce international law. Even if done under the guise of a coalition, it is nonetheless unilateral, as in the coalition alone.

The global community, i.e., the UN? Yes. By the way, the UN is currently, IMO, justified in taking military actions in Sudan right now too, but that's another thread...(hint).

Thanks, OULobo, for putting this back into perspective for me. The answer to the question is actually quite simple.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job.

I think that came about after WW2 when our policy of isolation doomed Europe, which was nearly completely conquered by Hitler until the US "decided" (or were forced) we had to step in. By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members. Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions? As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.

This is far bigger than GW as well. Clinton did a lot of action against Iraq during his term as well. Unfortunately it fell short of making Saddam submit to the resolutions.

If the global "laws" are not enforced, blame the UN, not the US. The US is only an arm of it and really only have our interests at heart. We only have so much money/force that we can apply at one time and must do so wisely.

The only qualification is that Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to inspect and had agreed to not have WMDs after the first Gulf War, which from what I can see, he followed.

Hmm... in compliance?

CNN 7/18/1996
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Less than a month after promising U.N. inspectors unlimited access to possible weapons sites, Iraq twice blocked teams from making their rounds, diplomats said Wednesday.

CNN 8/23/1996
The United Nations Security Council once again called on Iraqi authorities to stop interfering with inspections requested by U.N. weapons experts in Iraq.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus told the Council Thursday that his inspectors were stopped last Friday on their way to a site outside Baghdad, in direct violation of an agreement reached June 22 between Ekeus and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

CNN 1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday.

CNN 11/5/1998
The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

CNN 11/27/2001
A day after President Bush issued a stern warning, Iraqi government officials said Tuesday they will not let weapons inspectors back into the country until U.N. sanctions have been lifted.




The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.

I agree that this was one justification for Hussein's ousting. However,

By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members. Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions? As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.

according to the UN Security Council webpage,

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

The invasion of Iraq, I believe, qualifies as a "substantive" matter. France vetoed. So, by your own argument, though the UN security council IS the global police, and the US is a major contributor of resources to their cause, they stepped outside of their UN authority in order to accomplish the task.

The powers and historical contributions of the US do not provide justification for the war.

 

[OULobo]

I think that came about after WW2 when our policy of isolation doomed Europe, which was nearly completely conquered by Hitler until the US "decided" (or were forced) we had to step in. By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members. Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions? As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.

Congress made an official declaration of war to attack the axis powers in WWII, something I have yet to see for Iraq. Even if there was a declaration of war it would be against the nation of Iraq of which we have conquered. I agree the UN is the "global police", yet we go directly against them in unilateral action. Who's the bad guy now?

This is far bigger than GW as well. Clinton did a lot of action against Iraq during his term as well. Unfortunately it fell short of making Saddam submit to the resolutions.

If the global "laws" are not enforced, blame the UN, not the US. The US is only an arm of it and really only have our interests at heart. We only have so much money/force that we can apply at one time and must do so wisely.

It's the "wisely" descriptor that I don't agree with. Attacking a country against the UN in a unilateral military action is our fault, not the UN's. If the UN placed the sanctions, who are we to enforce them without UN approval? In a sense we have become vigilantes or some would say bullies, as opposed to police.

Hmm... in compliance?

CNN 7/18/1996
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Less than a month after promising U.N. inspectors unlimited access to possible weapons sites, Iraq twice blocked teams from making their rounds, diplomats said Wednesday.

CNN 8/23/1996
The United Nations Security Council once again called on Iraqi authorities to stop interfering with inspections requested by U.N. weapons experts in Iraq.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus told the Council Thursday that his inspectors were stopped last Friday on their way to a site outside Baghdad, in direct violation of an agreement reached June 22 between Ekeus and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

CNN 1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday.

CNN 11/5/1998
The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

CNN 11/27/2001
A day after President Bush issued a stern warning, Iraqi government officials said Tuesday they will not let weapons inspectors back into the country until U.N. sanctions have been lifted.




The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.

WhiteBirch

Non-compliance, like the complete lack of WMDs. The only thing that is across the board is GW's willingness to trample all international law on his way to getting at Saddam. His compliance, as I tried to relay in my statement, was that he had no WMDs, and unless something has changed in the past few minutes, no one seems to be able to prove that he did. I won't argue that he obstructed the inspectors, but the jist of the operation and the sanctions was POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, yet no one seems to be able to find any. If a cop arrests me for having a concealed weapon, but he can't find a concealed weapon on me, then I can spell wrongful arrest, and when I'm done, I'm sure he will be able to too. What is the differance?

 

[PeachMonkey]

The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.

Apparently you're not looking closely enough. It's particularly interesting that your CNN article listings end in 2001, *before* Iraq actually allowed inspectors *back into the country*.

Since we're using CNN as a data-source, let me provide a few more links for those interested in a more complete history of Iraq weapons inspections.

UN Weapons Inspectors Return To Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/index.html

The Inspections So Far:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/timep.inspections.tm/index.html

UN Weapons Inspectors State No Evidence of WMDs Before War:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.intl/index.html

UN Weapons Inspectors Claim War Was Not Justified:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

UN Chief Weapons Inspector Attacks WMD 'Spin':
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Whoa. Peachmonkey. OULobo. Flatlander. Good ripostes to Whitebirch.

The notion of invading Iraq for reasons of national security brings up the question of "who is next?"

Iran, who backed the terrorist bombing of 241 Marines in Lebanon in 1981, is in the final stages of developing nuclear weapons. Korea is working on them as well, and is developing missile technology that will allow Kim Jong Il to deploy warheads as far as the continental United States. Korea uses overt threatening language in stating its hostile intent towards the United States, and has for decades.

http://www.iht.com/articles/532461.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=603

North Korea also sold enriched uranium to Libya as well as missiles to Iran. They use missile sales to fund their nuclear weapons programs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1223058,00.html

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546


So. When are we hitting North Korea? Iran? I would argue they were far greater threats than Iraq. They have hostile intent, the nukes, and the delivery systems. They're part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" and are listed on the State Department's list of six remaining countries that sponsor terrorism.

Wimpy Iraq didn't really have squat, now, did she?


Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

This might not be a factually substantiated defense of a justificiation or our invovlement in any way, but I do think it is still substantial in a humanitarian way:

I was watching the opening ceremonies for the summer olympics and really cheered and noticed the Greek spectators cheering heartily when the Iraq and Afg. contingencies were announced. I would say that the olympic athletes who don't have to worry about being tortured or killed for any losses or substandard performances by SHussein's son Uday would say that, though the short term of rebuilding and reorganization makes life 'interesting', that the future prospects for themselves and their country are far more open and progressive than they were under SHussein.

Same goes for the Afg. athletes (Afg. was barred from the Olympics because of teh Taliban rule and oppression of women). Especially the women athletes who were there to compete. They, none of them, may be medal contendors in their sports, but at least they had the chance to compete.

Quality of life might not be where it could be, or even was before the war actions in both countries, but I would say the potential for quality of life for the future generations is better than it was before....