Was the war justified?

[Epidemic]

This guy nailed 98% of my feelings and concerns.

Especially on my questions Of WMD and Bush and Blair who I do not blindly support but am currently giving the benefit of the doubt. I can be convinced that Bush and blair should be fed to the wolves but it would take much more then enuendo.

My views on the war. (by proxy)

where I differ from the article in my 2% is in the articles harsh treatement of post war efforts. I have the same concerns but I give a bit more leeway in that I feel that it is a very complex process and bound to have some slip ups. The article is not as forgiving in this respect. But other than that the questions they ask, the metrics they use, and the justifying reasons they use are spot on. IMHOOC

[J-Excel]

For the most part people that were for the war before it started will find reasons to say it was justified, and people that were against the war before it started will find reasons to say it wasn't justified. It's really too early to tell. If conditions improve in the middle east over the next few decades as a result of the war then it was justified. If we just added fuel to the fire then it was a mistake. The justification for war btw shouldn't be pinned on WMD alone. WMD was just one of many reasons for ousting Saddam. In fact, Saddam's regime was a WMD in itself.

[Knothead]

Great thread, and great article, Epi. Around this time, we're all wondering, "Was that such a great idea?"

At the time we started sending troops, I thought (and still believe) there was a rush to judgement, and that money being fed to the Military-Industrial complex was the motivating factor, along with the fact that Americans are loathe to vote a sitting President out of office when there's a war on. I believe the interests of the Bush administration were far more self-serving, and far less about issues of security or noblesse oblige.

Well, now we're hearing about wonderful things happening in the region. Tragedies too, but it IS war. Among the positives:

--Hussein, a dictator who murdered his own people, is history. At this point, that guy couldn't run a plebescite of an ant farm.

--Stories of a liberated people. Speaks for itself. I truly love to hear of this!

--Hate to say it, (I'm a die-hard anti-imperialist) but anybody notice how the countries in the region are paying real good attention to the dictates of the U.S.? We showed them we meant business....either that, or that we've got a leader even crazier than what they had, plus more guns and bombs times squared!

What's happened, IMO, is we went in for one reason (which was questionable, to put it polite-like) and wound up with benefits that may not have been planned, (but to give the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were) but are pretty darn good, nonetheless.

I think at this point, the question of WMD's is becoming an abstract one, not relevant. Well, if Bush's spin doctors have anything to say about it, anyway.

There are lots more considerations of course, which also make this a pretty sticky question. One thing is for sure, we all saw some earth-shaking history made, and I do believe, one way or the other, that there will be more stability in the region.

Even if we have to shove it down their throats!

[Epidemic]

"What's happened, IMO, is we went in for one reason (which was questionable, to put it polite-like) and wound up with benefits that may not have been planned, (but to give the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were) but are pretty darn good, nonetheless.
"

I do not believe that the benefits were unplanned but merely another reason on the laundry list. The goal was always stated to present a beacon of stability. This is part of the reason Iraq was selected. Iran, North Korea even Syria would not have been so easy. Couple that with saddam handing us reasons and obstruction was too good to ask for. WMD I truely hope were there or our intelligence agencies really need work.

[ClubMed]

Was the war justified?

My answer is no.

No WMD's found, despite the countless allegations.

A chaos that is growing day after day.

Al Qaida has found a new home (no proof they existed in the pre-invasion period).

A country that was never a threat (no proof of functioning WMD programs) is now a real threat (Just like the chaos in Afghanistan led to 9/11).

America is now at threat of more groups, it has become a bigger terrorist-magnet by it's own actions, or by the actions of it's politicians.

It was and is still an illegal invasion. That's my opinion on the matter.

Frankly I do not think Americans are safer now, on the contrary. But some companies are going to be richer, good for them I guess.

[Martoch]

Oh I don't know...





The war is definitely justified...but I don't think the timing was right...not sure if Iraq was the place to go either...as Todd mentioned there was a rush to judgement.

Great article Epi!

[Epidemic]

CM,

did you read the article?

Just curious.

Another reason which was alluded to in the article but I would like to make it a bullet item.

France was working on trying to lift sanctions. Do you believe that saddam would have behaved with reduced or removed restrictions? Would we have been able to "keep him contained"?

Personally I do not see any way that we could have lifted sanctions with any assurity that saddam would have played nice.

A confirmed liar, obstructor, with dillusions of rebuilding an empire comprising all of his neighbors and you have a risk not worth taking.

laundry list of reasons beyond WMD or direct assault on mainland USA. Unless he was playing some sort of credibility game or shipped his WMD off to another country I still believe his toys will show up burried 150 miles outside of town in a large sand storage area. I just can not believe that the man would not have told UN that he had destroyed the stuff or that he was about to in a bit to have sanctions lifted. Even the obstruction leading up to the days before the war would have been a good time to speak up. Well time will tell I just hope that the US keeps on trying to see a new government launched and that Al-Qaeda and friends send enough people to Iraq to attack us and deplete their human resources all on the bid to keep Iraq in the 13th century. 3 or 4 thousand and they will have spent their human load.

One thing that you should realize from the terrorist attacks in Iraq is that they are definitely not freedom fighting attacks. Something else obviously at work here. Attacking Oil, water and electric should be viewed as attacks on Iraqi people themselves. Al-Qaeda, Syrians, Iranian factions are all attempting to make Iraqis miserable.

[originel]

I think at this point, the question of WMD's is becoming an abstract one, not relevant.

Very good point. Actually i've always believed this to be the case, but that's just me. I never felt that WMDs were a reason for the US to go to war with Iraq...iw oudl be a good reason for Israel or it's other neighbors within reach of saddam's weapons, but not us.

America is now at threat of more groups, it has become a bigger terrorist-magnet by it's own actions, or by the actions of it's politicians.

I actually agree with this. but at the same time it seems that no matter WHAT we do this is the case. We could Set up a constant cash flow to these people and it would increase. we could pull out completely and it would increase. it doesn't matter what we do , it will increase. so that is not an argument against the war, just merely a fact that by simply being it will happen. let's face it, the reason they hate us is because we're us. at least that's the only reason that has been made clear to me.

A country that was never a threat (no proof of functioning WMD programs) is now a real threat (Just like the chaos in Afghanistan led to 9/11).

i'm curios, what is your reasoning on this? they certainly are more dangerous to our troops, but that's kinda a given. but do you mean they are now a threat to the mainland?

As for whether the war was justified i have two thoughts: on one side saddam needed to be taken out...it was just kinda a given. we knew he has had wmd's and he's used them on his own people, blah blah blah. It's like we almost had proof for going to war on a lot of fronts but couldn't quite make any single one of them work, but put together it seems obvious. But on the other hand here is my concern: a) we attacked Iraq first, which i believe is a first for this country b) we went in without direct proof. while i stated my reasons for why i feel it was okay this time i'm very afraid a future president might use this precedent to do the same thing, except that time it won't be so obvious and we will, in fact, turn out to be wrong and basically seriously screw up.

[Phideaux]

It was all a lie. It's still a lie. All we seem to get from this administration are lies.

[ben-the-slacker]

You cannot start a war in order to create a reason to explain why you started the war in the first place. Going into Iraq on the basis of it having WMDs only to throw the reason of WMDs aside as soon as USA was in Iraq does not make other nations feel at ease.

I think Iraq has become a scapegoat in this fiasco. 911 gave USA a chance to exploit its military powers around the globe. (Wars have been and still are fundamental to USA's development as a country.) How can a country in utter chaos with no abundance of natural resources like Afghanistan ever satisfy USA's hunger. Iraq is a much lucrative target. Add in one ruthless ruler, mix with a little rumor about ties with Al Quaida and 911 and WMDs, shake well, and voila!--Instant war!

With all of America complaining about terrorism everyday, it makes me wonder why throw more gas in the fire? Everyone says USA is the target of terrorism and terrorism needs to be wiped out. How do you do that? Don't worry, Bush's got the plan! Go into a country, bash the place up, not having a clue about cleaning up the mess you made, and you expect them to be grateful? First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Iran is getting blamed for Al Quaida. Somehow USA's got it in its head that "one terrorist organization = entire country." It's like surgery. Instead of making a careful incision and removing the cancer, USA creates a gaping hole and in the process of removing the cancer, also destroys all the vital organs.

USA went in expecting to look like a good-will nation that it once was, doing its duty of protecting freedom and freeing people from bondage, that USA was capable of taking on unconventional warfare, that USA had a great plan about reconstruction. What ended up was a picture of USA having big balls and no brain.