Jump to content

The War on Iraq


BondTrader

Recommended Posts

OK, I am really surprised that after searching I could not find a topic that asked about people's opinions on the War on Iraq. The closest I could find was this, but it focuses on the relation of the war with 9/11 which is not what I am focusing on. If there are any topics relating to mine, please lock this topic.

 

First of all, the major accusations against Iraq occurred because of American suspicion that Iraq had WMDs. Until today there are no proofs that such weapons exist and were controlled by Iraqi forces under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Please feel free to add information that I have missed because I am just starting the topic with this brief statement.

 

My personal belief-> Yes, I believe that if a country has proof of WMDs and feels threatened it should act, not necessarily with military forces, but sanctions and UN appeals. The United States felt threatened but the real question is, "Did they have proof?". United Nation inspectors looked through nuclear plants in Iraq for the enrichment of Uranium to create possible WMDs, although nothing was found. The United States had no proof (that we know of) and had another war on their hands, an unstable economy, and all this was happening less than two years after a homeland crisis (9/11). I personally do not believe that war was necessary, and that it made things worse for America.

------------------------------

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vertical limit

Not trying to turn this to a 911 topic but.

 

 

Bin Laden did terrorist acts because of that sh*t.

 

But I a not American nor Iraqi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not trying to turn this to a 911 topic but.

 

 

Bin Laden did terrorist acts because of that sh*t.

 

But I a not American nor Iraqi.

What? I mean, really, what are you saying?

 

So, bin Laden did terrorist acts because of the Iraq war, despite the fact that the Iraq war began in 2003, with 9/11 occurring in 2001? Osama was not a time travelling terrorist. It was the Afghan war which was in a direct relationship with the 9/11 attacks, but it was because of 9/11, not something that caused it. Iraq had no direct connection to 9/11 whatsoever. Of course, pretty much everything that has happened in that area of Western politics since has been influenced by it, but there was no real connection between Iraq and the WTC attacks.

 

Goddamn.

Edited by Robinski
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's referring to the first Gulf War. With all the US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia and trampling on holy ground and such. Wiki. Since we never dismantled our no-fly zones before going back it could be considered an ongoing conflict from then until now.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, he's being a bit dense, because while that does make a whole lot more sense we were very clearly talking about the 2003 Iraq war.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few little-known facts about the Iraq War for your perusal.

 

1) The WMD intelligence was UK led, not US led, contrary to popular belief. The issue with it's validity arose because of a number of issues- firstly, the fact that Saddam Hussien's own generals had convinced him that they did have WMD capability. Secondly, the fact that since the departure of the UNESCOM monitoring service in 1998 (in the run-up to Operation Desert Fox) there were no weapons inspectors in the country, and therefore all valid data regarding Iraq's WMD programs was at least four years old at the time of the 2002 September Dossier. Finally, the nature of Iraqi politics and society meant that it was nearly impossible to validate information on WMDs that was coming out of Iraq. Ergo, a "worst case scenario" was assumed to exist.

 

2) Even in light of the aforementioned, Iraq could have resumed constructing chemical and biological weapons systems, most likely Sarin and Mustard Gas, in a matter of 2-3 weeks given the avalibility of required precursor chemicals.

 

3) There are many valid theories regarding where any chemical weapons could have been hidden or sent. The post-war looting of Baghdad gave cover for the remnants of the Iraqi security services to destroy documentation related to such weapon programs, an event that almost definitaly took place given the very select nature of much of the information destroyed. Other theories include the transfer or such weapos into Syria, or their quite literal burying in the sand (like much of the Iraqi Air Force was).

 

 

Regardless, whilst the justification for the war may have been flawed, the war itself is, in my opinion, justified. Not one soul can look me in the eyes with a straight face and say that the world is a wose place with Saddam Hussein and his leadership gone.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, all the facts that you have stated are reliable and to my knowledge, true. The US and the UK shared the WMD info, although the question that I tried focusing on was from an US point of view since they commenced the invasion and led it. I, myself, have stated before that I believe the war is justified, but guys, please lay off the 9/11 topic. The Iraq War is not connected to 9/11 (sure there have been accusations that Saddam funded Al-Qaeda activities), but let's focus on 2003, the US already in conflict in Afghanistan. I disagree that war was necessary at that time. Especially with such critical information being uncertain, many of the American sources for the WMDs were from the Saddam opposition. The US shouldn't have gone to war, even though war was justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rob: Yeah he's also not bothering to read replies in the NATO/Syria topic. And the devil can never have too many advocates right?

 

@Topic: Okay not really. Anyone else in their dealings with people who speak english as a second language find "please" used with improper tone a lot? German friend of mine does the same thing. It's like an authoritative please... like nails on a chalkboard. Maybe I'm needlessly putting it on non-english users... I'll try and listen to primary english users to make sure. K. Musing done.

 

@Topic: In retrospect the whole thing was a mess. If Saddam had restarted his chemical or biological programs history may have wished we had intervened. Also the guy was a prick, and SHOULD have been taken out years ago after he launched attacks on the Kurdish and Shi'ite minorities. Should we have stayed in as long or as heavy? There I'm unsure. Helping to rebuild is one thing, fighting their civil war for them is another. It also would've been nice if the UN hadn't been bombed early on. Them running away didn't help the public's perception.

 

Before the lack of WMD's and the UN incident turned us off though I could've seen the conflict continuing to spread to Syria and Iran.. (I was like 13 at the time and I stand by 13 year old me until proven otherwise) and that would probably have been more than we could handle.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Topic: Okay not really. Anyone else in their dealings with people who speak english as a second language find "please" used with improper tone a lot? German friend of mine does the same thing. It's like an authoritative please... like nails on a chalkboard. Maybe I'm needlessly putting it on non-english users... I'll try and listen to primary english users to make sure. K. Musing done.
English is basically my first language bud... I used "please" once. Anyway, thanks for the contribution to the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Not justified at all. I don't care if he was abusive to his people. That's not our job to fix. The intelligence was faulty, a lot of it came from one witness who later said he lied, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not one soul can look me in the eyes with a straight face and say that the world is a wose place with Saddam Hussein and his leadership gone.

Ha, there are many people who I could tell you the world would be a much better place without. Gary Neville, for one.

 

Unlike the US administration, the British Government did not give the impression that Saddam Hussein’s regime supported al-Qaeda. So if there was a genuine threat that Iraq could have WMD's, there was no evidence that they would happily pass it along to terrorists. The main difference between Bush and Blair, was that Blair - with his "clever plan" - wanted to re-instate weapon inspectors in Iraq whilst Bush just wanted to tear and bomb the motherf*cking place up. In other words, one was a peaceful solution, and the other not so peaceful. The plan failed. That is, in my opinion, one of the reasons the war was unjustified to me. It was handled poorly. The courses of action were nonsensical. Yes, we removed a brutal leader, but was all that effort, lives, and money spent worth it in the end?

 

The intel was flawed, the price was high. There could have been a more peaceful, less-expensive solution to approaching the whole matter. There is still major questions being raised as to if our presence there was really necessary, or under dodgy circumstances. Yes, Saddam was removed. More caution, evidence, and intelligence should have been reviewed by the US. It was still not justifiable.

Edited by The Killa

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I quite agree that the conduct of the conflict was poor. If more emphasis had been placed on developing an understanding of the social and ethnic tensions that were suppressed under Saddam Hussein's regime, then the likelihood of the Civil War situation that was seen after the initial invasion would have been drastically reduced. However, one cannot solely blame the actions of the Coalition in Iraq for the massive rise in violence, conflict between Sunni and Shia and the expansion of Iranian-funded militia groups into many of the major cities.

 

One point worth reinforcing is the idea that, inside Iraq's political structure pre-invasion, different individuals held different views on the actual presence and development of any illegal weapons programs. For instance, Hussein himself believed that the program had been restarted after the departure of UNESCOM in 1998, though it is likely that this was a deliberate misinformation by his own military leadership due to a fear of his notoriously violent over-reactions. It's also worth considering that the regulations in relation to Weapons of Mass Destruction did not just include the development of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, but also to elements of Iraq's ballistic missile program. Whilst the 1991 Gulf War resulted in the loss of a large number of Iraqi Scud theatre-level ballistic missiles, not all were destroyed and in the proceeding years Iraq received significant shipments of parts from China and Russia to assist in modernising their missile systems, and most importantly boosting their range beyond that permitted by the UNSC resolutions. If one reads the Butler Report on the issue, there is significant focus on the importance of the development of such weapons- in light of the fact that, regardless of current status, the Iraqi weapons program could have produced workable quantity of nerve agent within as little as two weeks, the development of a missile almost impossible to destroy once outside of initial launching stages with the capability to hit Riyadh or even Tel Aviv was extremely disturbing. Ballistic missile systems serve almost no purpose in modern warfare, save for delivering weapons of mass destruction, so why go to the effort of extending the range and survivability of such systems unless a payload was to be prepared for them?

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think he's referring to the first Gulf War. With all the US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia and trampling on holy ground and such. Wiki. Since we never dismantled our no-fly zones before going back it could be considered an ongoing conflict from then until now.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Even worse, "walking on our holy land" is a good argument? hell no.

 

Anyway,

Family-wise - if your son went there, it's definitely not good.

Otherwise - Those SOTB had to suffer for what their representative did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyway,

Family-wise - if your son went there, it's definitely not good.

Otherwise - Those SOTB had to suffer for what their representative did.

You can't just seek retribution for the actions of a head of state without going down the proper channels.

 

There were no grounds on which Britain or the USA could claim that this was a just war. There were no weapons that posed an external threat, and no plans to develop any.

 

True, Saddam was a terrible tyrant, but the world has seen plenty of these. They aren’t often removed if the only threat they pose is to their own people, whether in SE Asia, in Africa, or in Latin America. Indeed, the USA has a shameful record of having supported some of these. Saddam’s government was supported by the West whilst he waged a war on Iran which involved the use of chemical weapons.

 

We also know that the Iraqi regime gave no support to Al-Qaeda, and would have suppressed any act of terrorism. So, to decide to overthrow Saddam in the aftermath of 9-11 now appears completely illogical.

 

It now looks as though the decision to go to war was fuelled by the failure of the USA to eradicate the sources of terrorism. The most powerful nation on earth simply wanted an excuse to show what its overpowering weaponry could do, and take the eyes of the American public away from the intelligence failures which had both allowed the 9/11 events, and provided faulty information about the dangers posed by Baghdad.

 

George Bush needed a victim, a scapegoat for his own failures, and found it in Sadaam Hussain. He convinced Tony Blair, but he failed to convince most of the European Union, failed to convince the United Nations, and failed to convince a million demonstrators in Britain.

 

It was clear from the way the war was prosecuted that this was a piece of scapegoating, rather than a liberation for the Iraqi people. Much of the infrastructure of the ancient city of Baghdad was needlessly destroyed. The army, who hadn’t been seriously mobilised in any strength, was disbanded. The ensuing power vacuum allowed looting and lawlessness on a grand scale, sowing the seeds of strong opposition to the invaders.

 

The idea of finding a scapegoat was always a mistake. It was an ancient idea of the Jews that once a year, in an elaborate ritual, the sins of the people could be driven out by loading them on to the back of a hapless animal, which was driven out into the desert. Surely a moment’s rational thought is enough to show that a dumb animal cannot carry the sins of human beings. A goat is quite incapable of making people good. It might, given an impressive enough ritual, have convinced people 3,000 years ago. It might have made them feel good about themselves. But today the idea of making a scapegoat of someone is morally bankrupt.

 

EDIT: Checked spelling etc.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Bush needed a victim, a scapegoat for his own failures, and found it in Sadaam Hussain. He convinced Tony Blair, but he failed to convince most of the European Union, failed to convince the United Nations, and failed to convince a million demonstrators in Britain.

You see, this is the bit that I'm really not sure of. I hear it said a lot that Blair was convinced by, or followed, Bush into war, but from all the empirical evidence I just can't see it happening. The dossier that was used as the justification for the invasion based on the WMD reasoning was floating around UK intelligence circles long before it was even seen by the US administration. And some of the official papers on the issue, such as the Butler Review (which is readily available for perusal, though very long), whilst primarily focused on the UK case for war, seems to indicate it was British policy makers who developed the policy to a usable level through their provision of intelligence support that the CIA had proved incapable of getting.

 

I don't think that there was any "convincing" from either side involved, to be honest. The Chilcot enquiry has, in my mind, rather dispelled the idea that Blair was somehow Bush's lap-dog or many of the other clichés surrounding the subject. To me, the transcripts of the January 2003 meeting don't seem to reflect many of the other factors surrounding the start of the conflict, or indeed statements Blair made at the time and since then.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If removing Saddam was indeed soo important, then you could have waited 7 years at least for the Arab Spring to come which would no doubt have spread to Iraq as it has spread to Ba'athist Syria. At least the Transitional National Council of Libya consists of former generals and other leaders who actually know how to run their country, and the whole war is a "grassroots" one started by the people themselves. Just saying "oh hey btw. Saddam is bad lol here are some bombs oh also we removed any trace of the Iraqi army so your country will now be in chaos and ethnic conflict for the next two decades thank you yours truly the USA" is what made the war so stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sivispacem

 

If removing Saddam was indeed soo important, then you could have waited 7 years at least for the Arab Spring to come which would no doubt have spread to Iraq as it has spread to Ba'athist Syria. At least the Transitional National Council of Libya consists of former generals and other leaders who actually know how to run their country, and the whole war is a "grassroots" one started by the people themselves. Just saying "oh hey btw. Saddam is bad lol here are some bombs oh also we removed any trace of the Iraqi army so your country will now be in chaos and ethnic conflict for the next two decades thank you yours truly the USA" is what made the war so stupid.

That's very presumptuous, though. Ba'athist Iraq makes Ba'athist Syria look like a Nordic democracy, such was it's brutal nature. Remember, Hussein had a cult of personality around him like Kim-Jong Il, Stalin or Tito- as well as full and unshakable control of the armed forces and paramilitaries. The same is not true in Syria- sure, in Iraq, people were unhappy with the Ba'athist regime, but they were also far too terrified of retribution to do anything about it. For example, the Iraqi secret service under Hussein, the IIS/Mukhabarat, was (in terms of saturation in society) about twice as prevalent as the Gestapo. There were more parallels with regimes like the Stalinist communist dictatorships and National Socialism in Europe in the 1930s than there are ones with traditional Ba'athism...

 

In Libya, Gadaffi had other political organisations banned. In Libya, Hussein had the leadership and members of anything remotely resembling a political organisation tortured and murdered. One of the principal reasons why establishing a functioning government after the fall of the Ba'ath regime was sheerly because there were so few possible candidates to construct a government from.

Edited by sivispacem

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Thought I'd get this going again.

 

I think that preperations for war were being made years before the actual invasion. First there's the no fly zone(s) that were in place from the end of the first gulf war. Supposedly in place to protect the kurds in the north and shi'ites in the south, yet the northern no fly zone left around half the Kurdistan autonomous region below it and out of its "guardianship". This makes you wonder if the protection and safety of civillians was really the primary concern and reason, and the fact that the no fly zone wasn't even sanctioned by the UN in the first place. The fact that the no fly zone was not simply used for the defense of civillians, but in fact was used as an offensive tool with which to strike indiscriminantly at Iraqi military targets and infrastructure throughout the impostion of the NFZ.

 

The hundreds of thousands of sinister propoganda leaflets dropped over southern Iraq on numerous occasions which basically threatened the people into compliance over 1) supporting the air strikes, which in many cases killed civillians. 2) Supporting the overthrow of Saddam and the Ba'ath party (which they didn't need much persuading in anyways).

 

Then there's the harsh sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people which starved and deprived them, designed to break the country into rebellion and lead to the overthrow of the Ba'ath party. So maybe not all of those things were directly made in preperation for war, but they were certainly done with the goal of regime change.

 

However one thing that still baffles me is why, in March 1991 when there was a great chance to potentially overthrow the regime did the Americans do nothing, in fact worse than nothing they in fact aided the Iraqi government: The Iraqi forces which had invaded Kuwait were made up largely of conscripted Kurds and Shi'ites. They were sent into an unwinnable war against the coalition forces, and were also unwilling to die for Saddam. The retreating Iraqi forces had large numbers of potential rebellers/defectors, and no less they were in southern Iraq. Southern Iraq which had suffered terribly under Saddam and Ba'ath party rule. The marshes of Southern Iraq had been drained and poisoned, and its people killed in a genocide and forced to flee. The repression of the shia community in Southern Iraq and the brutality and suffering endured. The situation was ideal for an uprising.

 

So why then when they did in fact rebel, and did fight back against the regime were their efforts not supported? Huge areas of southern Iraq fought back as well as areas in the Kurdish North, and they had the support of sections of the army which had defected. The coalition forces in fact hindered them, they destroyed and confiscated Iraqi munitions which the rebels could have used. General Norman Schwarzkopf refused to even meet with the leading shia rebellion leaders, and no contact was made. Worst of all though the actions or non-actions undertaken was the decision to lift the overflight ban on Iraqi aircraft. This allowed them to use helicopter gunships which the rebels had no chance to fight. The resulting slaughter and massacres seen across Iraq, not just of the rebel fighters but of innocent civillians were overwhelming, and would have been more than enough to justify an intervention. But the US and coalition forces just stood by and allowed it to happen.

 

They had the chance to end Saddam's rule there and then, but chose not to. Imo they had much more justification to invade back then, than they did in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, whilst the justification for the war may have been flawed, the war itself is, in my opinion, justified. Not one soul can look me in the eyes with a straight face and say that the world is a wose place with Saddam Hussein and his leadership gone.

Stabbing children stops them from crying, and not one soul can look me in the eye and tell me that crying children is a good thing.

 

It's just flawed logic. You can't focus on one detail. You have to look at the big picture. Overall, the situation in the world has become worse. Yes, a dictator has been removed from heading a significant regional power. On the other hand, in United States the liberties have been reduced under excuse of "country in a state of war," and the executive branch has been given a number of additional powers. And this isn't a regional power. It's a country that possesses both the largest air force in the world and the second largest air force in the world, along with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, most powerful fleet, etc, etc. Even a small nudge towards more authoritarian in the system that controls all that is far more concerning than a dictator in the middle east who might or might not have weapons of mass destruction and no means to deliver them anywhere that matters.

 

That by itself might sound alarmist, but examine the reasons why the war was started.

 

1) WMDs. Balls. You don't need a single foot on the country's soil to deal with these. Even if you don't know where they all are, but are somehow absolutely certain that they are there, you can destroy key infrastructure to make sure that they stay wherever they are hidden for a very, very long time.

 

2) Freeing the people. Ha, ha. Moving on.

 

3) Oil. Sounds convincing. They do have oil. Quite a bit of it. And people who started the war, well, there are a lot of them with oil connections. But the entire strategy was completely wrong for it. It wasn't a land grab. Oil fields were left to burn. These that were intact were not secured. Supply lines not established. I mean, it's easy to blame incompetence, but people who make money on oil do know a few things about making money on oil. Even from pure businessmen perspective, nothing was done to secure the oil.

 

These three reasons are the 1-2-3 of any successful media cover. People must be convinced that you're doing the right thing, that there is an immediate danger if it's not done, and they'll think they are being tricked if they can't see something in it for people in power. All three present and accounted for, and played out by the media day and night.

 

 

Now, to the roots. There are two reasons wars are started money or power. This wasn't about oil. The boost to economy wasn't significant enough, and the spending were rather serious. This war did not pay for itself. That leaves power. To drive this point all the way, consider what actually was done as far as strategy of the invasion. Committing large number of troops. leaving supply lines unprotected, slowing any kind of movement and ensuring constant attacks by guerrillas. Absolutely no exit strategy. This war was actually planned to become drawn out. People who started this war needed the state of war to continue for as long as possible without losing too much in terms of military and human resources.

 

In the united states, state of war means the executive branch has broader powers. Constitution grants implicitly any power to the executive branch that it needs to fulfill its duties. During the state of war, that's basically anything the executive branch cares to spin. Look at the executive orders that have been passed in the recent years. Most of them would be challenged and found unconstitutional in the time of peace. In terms of everyday life, you don't see a war going on. But legally, the country is in the state of war, and it makes all the difference.

 

 

When you see that the entire war was started as an internal power grab in the United States. When you see that it was largely successful, can you really say that the war was justified?

Prior to filing a bug against any of my code, please consider this response to common concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, the situation in the world has become worse.

 

Yes, a dictator has been removed from heading a significant regional power. On the other hand, in United States the liberties have been reduced under excuse of "country in a state of war," and the executive branch has been given a number of additional powers. And this isn't a regional power. It's a country that possesses both the largest air force in the world and the second largest air force in the world, along with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, most powerful fleet, etc, etc. Even a small nudge towards more authoritarian in the system that controls all that is far more concerning than a dictator in the middle east who might or might not have weapons of mass destruction and no means to deliver them anywhere that matters.

 

When you see that the entire war was started as an internal power grab in the United States. When you see that it was largely successful, can you really say that the war was justified?

Has it in Iraq, though? The situation in Iraq is pretty darn stable at the moment, and getting better rapidly. Fatality and "disappearance" rates are well below those under Saddam's rule. Al-Qaeda in Iraq have been largely neutered and have been incapable of conducting operations effectively on Iraqi soil. Economic stability has been restored to a greater extent. The Kurds now have their own semi-autonomous region and aren't being gassed or massacred on a yearly basis. The end-game for Iraq hasn't been all that bad, all things considered.

 

Now, what you say about the rest of the world is true, but I'd argue that the conflict in Iraq had little impact on that. Many people have come out with statements like "oh, the invasion of Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks in the West", but I don't buy that for a second. The Takfiri terrorist organisations who pose the significant threat to the West hated Ba'athist Iraq with a passion- hated their liberal interpretation of Islam, hated the perceived Westernised apostasy of the regime, hated the emphasis on regional power and statehood. The rise and fall of al-Qaeda in Iraq mirrors not events in the country itself but in the wider world- the incitement of violence between Sunni/Wahhabi and Shia was a product of the domestic environment of the nation, not of the military intervention; these tensions exist elsewhere in the Arab world but the powerful, autocratic regimes have the capability to suppress them. Is there any evidence to suggest that the invasion of Iraq has had a tangible negative impact on the safety and security of the world? I don't think there is.

 

The whole point with a power grab is that the power needs to be consolidated. Has it been? Can you really say that the last two regimes have succeeded in consolidating power for the executive branch of government, at the expense of the legislature, the judiciary and the voters? I'm not an American, so my views on this are entirely external (and I would hope reasonably objective, but then again that's a large step to make) but I wouldn't say that the executive is in any better a position in terms of power balance than it was this time a decade ago. I'll agree that the role of government in enforcing security- and infringing traditional liberties to do so- has accelerated in that time, but I'd argue that that is not a result of the Iraq conflict, but other geopolitical entities- the rise of militant Salafism and Takfiri terrorism, the successful attacks against the US mainland on September 11th and the climate of fear propagated by the media in all contradiction to the better knowledge of the security community. And has this resulted in a greater degree of political power being thrust on any institution? Again, I can only judge from the outside, but I would say no.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation in Iraq is pretty good now, you're right. But the real question is whether or not it was worth it, and that, to me, is a big no. If we took all of their oil like the Europeans are doing in Libya, I'd maybe change my view there. Afghanistan on the other hand has not been really successful no matter how you look at it, and unfortunately, we will need at least 3-4 more fighting seasons there to accomplish our goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it in Iraq, though? The situation in Iraq is pretty darn stable at the moment, and getting better rapidly. Fatality and "disappearance" rates are well below those under Saddam's rule. Al-Qaeda in Iraq have been largely neutered and have been incapable of conducting operations effectively on Iraqi soil. Economic stability has been restored to a greater extent. The Kurds now have their own semi-autonomous region and aren't being gassed or massacred on a yearly basis. The end-game for Iraq hasn't been all that bad, all things considered.

 

Now, what you say about the rest of the world is true, but I'd argue that the conflict in Iraq had little impact on that.

 

[...]

 

The whole point with a power grab is that the power needs to be consolidated. Has it been?

It's a little early to say, but if I had to bet, I'd say that in the long run, yes, this can be very good for Iraq. But there were ways to help Iraqi people without entering a long war. Look at Libya. US involvement there has done significantly more good. It allowed the local population to take control, and the strikes were used to put a level playing field between insurgents and loyalists. Every situation is unique, and so on, but it still should put things in perspective.

 

And yes, it's not about the prolonged war in Iraq. It's about the prolonged war in Iraq. If it wasn't Iraq, it'd be Afghanistan, or Iran, or Venezuela. They'd find somebody to invade. The problem is that congress let them. And that goes back to deeper issues of balance of power, and yes, the war really has nothing to do with it besides being means to an end. And no, the power grab wasn't complete, but neither is it done. The situation is worse than when it all started.

 

I think I understand what you're saying. Yes, given that the situation has been spiraling down long before the war, this particular war in that particular region with that particular outcome is not so bad. Some good will probably come out of it. But this was a good moment for people to put their foot down. To take a stand. Missing that opportunity was not worth it.

Prior to filing a bug against any of my code, please consider this response to common concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clem Fandango

Is it ever appropriate for two large, heavily militarised industrial powerhouses to team-up for a full blown war with a small, agricultural desert nation that had been under crippling economic sanctions for almost a decade? I say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is it ever appropriate for two large, heavily militarised industrial powerhouses to team-up for a full blown war with a small, agricultural desert nation that had been under crippling economic sanctions for almost a decade? I say no.

Yes it is.

 

Please don't post three-word comments in D&D. You've been here long enough to know the rules.

Edited by sivispacem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ever appropriate for two large, heavily militarised industrial powerhouses to team-up for a full blown war with a small, agricultural desert nation that had been under crippling economic sanctions for almost a decade? I say no.

You're right. It would have been better for everyone if the two powerful countries went to war against each other.

 

Wait, no, that can't be right.

 

 

 

In a war, overkill is a good thing. If you've decided you have a good reason to go to war, you need to commit as much offensive power to it as possible. Overwhelming power makes your own troops less jumpy, enemy more likely to surrender, and the overall conflict shorter. All good things when you're trying to reduce the collateral. So the fact that the large countries teamed up for the invasion has benefited everyone, including people being invaded.

Prior to filing a bug against any of my code, please consider this response to common concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clem Fandango

 

Is it ever appropriate for two large, heavily militarised industrial powerhouses to team-up for a full blown war with a small, agricultural desert nation that had been under crippling economic sanctions for almost a decade? I say no.

You're right. It would have been better for everyone if the two powerful countries went to war against each other.

 

Wait, no, that can't be right.

 

 

 

In a war, overkill is a good thing. If you've decided you have a good reason to go to war, you need to commit as much offensive power to it as possible. Overwhelming power makes your own troops less jumpy, enemy more likely to surrender, and the overall conflict shorter. All good things when you're trying to reduce the collateral. So the fact that the large countries teamed up for the invasion has benefited everyone, including people being invaded.

But why was full blown war necessary? America's military capabilities are already pretty clear. That's why there is the perception that the war was over oil or simply a way for America to beat it's chest - though I suppose are pretty simplistic.

 

Also, overkill is never a good thing, it mean ending or ruining lives, when the whole purpose of having a strong military is to avoid conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ever appropriate for two large, heavily militarised industrial powerhouses to team-up for a full blown war with a small, agricultural desert nation that had been under crippling economic sanctions for almost a decade? I say no.

You're right. It would have been better for everyone if the two powerful countries went to war against each other.

 

Wait, no, that can't be right.

 

 

 

In a war, overkill is a good thing. If you've decided you have a good reason to go to war, you need to commit as much offensive power to it as possible. Overwhelming power makes your own troops less jumpy, enemy more likely to surrender, and the overall conflict shorter. All good things when you're trying to reduce the collateral. So the fact that the large countries teamed up for the invasion has benefited everyone, including people being invaded.

But why was full blown war necessary? America's military capabilities are already pretty clear. That's why there is the perception that the war was over oil or simply a way for America to beat it's chest - though I suppose are pretty simplistic.

 

Also, overkill is never a good thing, it mean ending or ruining lives, when the whole purpose of having a strong military is to avoid conflict.

I dont support the Iraq War but I'll justify your question.... because Iraq had already been under no fly zones through the 90s to no avail. A full strike was what was required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Iraq was not the conflict itself, but how it was conducted. We wouldn't have had 3 years of sectarian violence, Shia death squads and Sunni militant bombings if the basic strategic planning hadn't been monolithically ballsed up. People can argue the justification of the war itself all they want, but the biggest failures on the Coalition's part were its basic conduct- the lack of any viable alternative political options to replace the Ba'athist regime, a complete misinterpretation of Iraqi public opinion to an overt foreign military presence and the bubbling undercurrent of violent sectarianism kept suppressed by the regime.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there is one major thing standing in the way of us truly knowing whether it was necessary or not. It's the fact that we don't know what would have happened if the war had not been started.

 

Obviously, many lives have been lost in the war, and more may be left in the aftermath, however if we had left the situation and not interfered at all, could the situation have gotten even worse on a worldwide scale? It may have; it may not have. We don't know that for sure; therefore I don't believe that we can provide a satisfactory answer to the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Obviously, many lives have been lost in the war, and more may be left in the aftermath, however if we had left the situation and not interfered at all, could the situation have gotten even worse on a worldwide scale? It may have; it may not have. We don't know that for sure; therefore I don't believe that we can provide a satisfactory answer to the question.

We can't, no, and hindsight doesn't always provide foresight. But with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject area, you can make educated guesses. In my view, a repeat of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s was a very real likelihood. The formation of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the years of sectarian violence- they're harder to anticipate, but many of the primary (generally external) factors were there already and all that would have been required to spark off the whole powder-keg is a relatively small victory on the part of one of the many factions- say, the Kurds to the North inflicting a strategic defeat against the Iraqi army. At the end of the day, every decision made should be reasoned on the likely outcomes- that's something that failed in Iraq, but even at the best of times, there's always a chance that the "most likely outcome" isn't the right one, and people need to accept that there are some things that just cannot be known, regardless of what apparatus are put into place to uncover them. For instance, the irrational decision-making process of a cult-of-personality, dangerously unstable, narcissistic, sociopathic, megalomaniac lunatic when placed under pressure.

Edited by sivispacem

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.