The War in Iraq

Who thinks the war in Iraq was a valid, lawful operation and who thinks otherwise?

What do you think the reasons are for the war in Iraq?

Decided to play 'Devils advocate' here...

 

Some interesting poll results already...


83% against US action... But only 6 voters so not exactly a comprehensive analysis but interesting nevertheless...

Cum on! Vote!

 

Was invading Iraq "lawful?" A poor question where international politics are concerned.

Otherwise, one thing I can say about Iraq is that it wasn't about oil except possibly as a periferial issue. The US does not particularly benefit from possession of middle east oil in general. Only about 6 to 8% of their useage comes from there. It is Europe (about half) and Japan (about 75%) that benefit from mid-east oil production.

A more relevant question to a board like this is what if Iraq was not invaded?
Would the US and UN still be trying to enforce the various sanctions against Iraq like the no-fly zones, weapons inspections, oil for fools...opps, food program ad infinitum?
Would Saddam have allowed al Queida and other now stateless terrorist groups safe haven in Iraq if they wanted it? After all, he did openly support virtually any and all anti-western terrorist groups in existance even if not every one of them wanted or asked for his help.
In the future, if left in power, would Saddam again pose a threat to his neighbors and cause serious military and political problems throughout the region?

My take on this is that Bush may not have gotten it completely right but, crushing Iraq was the right move for the US regardless of "world" opinion...particularly that of that infamous (and completely ineffectual) debating society on the Hudson the UN.

 

I voted. But my question is..where/what happened to Sadam's armor and planes.Did we get them all in part 1? Where were the "scuds"?

 

I agree largely with T.A. Garnder, except that the US DOES benefit fom Mid eastern oil. Maybe the % is lower than Japan or Europe, in absolute terms the US uses far more barrels than any of the other. (I have figures at home, though I don't really care to get into that discussion althought the oil aspect would make for an interesting one). The important thing is that Saddam is gone. The way Bush went about it can be questioned, but are we really sad that Saddam is no longer in power?

as for the UN (and Europe): Lead, Follow or get out of the way... ( )

 

Need more votes, but most think it's for oil? Here are some oil import facts - you make the call ...

OIL IMPORTS

 

That is a pretty good source you posted drache. I wish they would spend a fraction of what they spend on importing oil on alternate sources of energy but I guess we will have to wait for the Japanese to invent something.
Do you have any web pages that estimates the years left we will have oil to pump ?

 

I voted that the war was neccessary to defeat terror. By conducting operations in Iraq we've forced foreign Jihadi's to concentrate their efforts away from the US. For once in the long history of terror we've seized the iniative and, forced terrorists to fight a battle somewhere they don't want.

Now we just have to win.

 

So what was Afganistan?

The terrorists get to fight a battle in their homeland... If you think that the opposition is terrorist based, but personally I dont.

The opposition in Iraq seems mainly nationalistic rather than Islamist. I read in some US sources that only 10% of the resistance is supposed to be of terrorist/Foriegn Islamist fighters...

 

Or how about the USS COLE, "boat-bombed"?

 

That's business as usual - alternative energy has been around for a LONG time - ie. how about the synthetic fuels Germany used in WW2. It's not profitable to cure the world's ills! The world will not wait until the wells go dry before other engery sources become prevalant. It's economics -when oil sources become to expensive to get to - and profit margins shrink -
SEE CHARTS
we'll all be using wonderful clean hydrogen fuel cells - made from water - we have plenty of that

 

Saddam's gone. Everyone agrees that it is a good thing, for the Iraqis, the region and the world (remember how the bastard provoked an ecologic crisis in 91 when he set 900+ oil fields on fire?)

But the point against this war is: it was against the majority of the UN members and the security council. That is a violation of all agreements and international right. This means the undermining of treaties and the first real organisation that was made to discuss multilaterally matters that concern 6 billion people.

Listening to the Americans saying that the US is a fraud is insulting and annoying. This is XXI Century and the law of the strongest, imperialism and colonialism are out of date. And if they're not, they are against liberal and democratic ideals.

The reality is this: you have free Iraqi people, who live in a destroyed country and who have no running water, no services, no education, etc. They have little to be optimistic about. And British and American soldiers are dying right now at the hands of nationalist extremist groups within Iraq, while Al-Qaeda grows stronger everyday (it has increased its members in nearly 5.000 since 2001).

 

And don't forget his deliberate valve opening, discharging thousands of tons of crude into the Persian Gulf, which haven't been eliminated yet nor will be for a looong time

Possibly, but reconstruction would run a damned lot better if free traffic were allowed, instead of being blocked by a bunch of a$$holes who have no concern at all for the lives and welfare of the Iraqi people, and only care for their own ideology or interests. Of course this means the remains of the previous ruling elite, the Sunnis of the Baath Party, aided and abetted by their friends abroad, and the moral support of all manner of handwringers.

Why is it all the violence seems to be concentrated in Fallujah and Baghdad? Why is it that the "invaders" are so disliked that we never hear of any bombs etc in all the rest of the country? Are these people less patriotic than the others? Or is it because they are patriotic all right but they believe their country is better served by leading their own lives as peaceful citizens, only interested in rebuilding what they have with no interference from hotheads or worse?

No WMD were found? Entirely right, but if there were no WMD and Saddam knew it why did the prick play such a hide and seek game with the UN, who had approved a lot of resolutions on this matter? Problem was Pres. Bush got it into his head to call this SOB's bluff and there you are! Really, the SOB got a lot less than he deserved


[edited for clarification - Z.]

And by the way take a look at this newsflash:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm

I don't believe this piece of "journalism" (see disavowal in the next post), it was totally impossible for SH to go nuclear, but what concerns me is the method these things were disguised. What else was hidden and awaits discovery?

[ 21. July 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

 

Looks bogus -
Iraq dismisses nuclear find report

But - yeah, Iraq's a big place, you never know what you'll find ...

 

"No schools,running water etc."...how about this plan, quit hiding behind your doors and do something about it! That is if they truly wanted their "freedom".Did'nt the French take up arms against the Germans in Paris? Yes,they knew the allies were coming. Did'nt the "little thirteen colonies" take up arms against England?Gee, and look at us now....a "super-power". Where are all those "freed Iraqis" the news cameras showed beating the Sadamm statue with their sandals that coalition tank pulled down for them? Ehmm?

 

You're right, there's a long tradition of people taking up arms against occupying military forces.

 

Seeing as I started this as a 'Devils Advocate' may as well finish the job... Just gonna make some comments that maybe others are unwilling to voice...

Was it lawful? How can attacking a country that had NOT attacked the US or its citizens be classed as a lawful action? As a rather vague reference was Hitler 'lawful' in attacking Poland?

By Reddog

How you gonna win?

How is Iraq a war on Terrorism? I recognise that Iraq may have sponsered Terrorist organisations at some point but why invade? What difference would that make? Surely this would just increase support for Terrorism and play into the fundamentalist view of the imperialist US? Also why so many troops for Iraq and only 11,000 to Afganistan and some two months after the attacks on the US? Why did the US president want to go after Iraq from the start instead of going after Bin Laden? And again, the resistance movement in Iraq is NOT Islamic, it is almost solely nationalistic, comprising members of the Shite and Sunni factions, also I do not think that it is particuarly extremist in nature. Why should it be? As far as they are concerned they are an occupied nation whose civilians have been killed by an invading force. Was Saddam a convinient scapegoat for the elusive Osama Bin Laden? After all...

But what of the Oil? It is certain that US big business will benefit not just from the oil but also from the re-building contracts offered. If it aint about the money why are so many of the companies involved linked to the Bush administration?

WMD... Why did the US state in 2000 that Iraq could not make WMD but only two years later listed Iraqs substantial WMD programme? Surely the poor Intel is reason alone for the likes of Blair and Bush to leave office?

Liberation of Iraqi people... Well the ones that are still alive that is... 'Hearts and Minds' I heard a coalition soldier say... Looks to be goin the same way as Vietnam.


I would like to state that I at first supported the war, but very quickly changed my mind. I have since the start, and still do view, it as one of the most dangerous periods in Human history in a very volatile region... Bit like smoking a cigarette in a gunpowder factory...

 

Just had a look at the votes and see that Anti-Terrorism is top as the reason to invade...

So why aint the US invaded Saudi Arabia then? They have funded Terrorism, Bin LAden is a Saudi and 14 of the 19 hijackers were saudis. They also have an opressive regime that still publicly beheads people.

But then they have given the US alot of cash...

Can anyone give me concrete proof that invading Iraq has had any anti-terrorist benefit? In my view it seems to have proved the Islamic fundamentalist view of the US right...

 

Or N.KOREA...heck they may even have nuclear weapons?

 

Exactly...

Do they have oil though...