Iraq! For those who said we shouldn't have gone to war

[ComradeBadger]

Now, I will close this thread if it goes flamey.. so keep it clean.

What I am asking, is what do you personally think is/was the right way to solve the Iraq problem.

 

[Moto]

Eh, I don't really know. I'm no longer in support of the war, but I am not 100% against it either. I don't know if it was a good idea or a bad idea and I don't know of any better ways to solve the problem...

Could everyone please refrain from saying mean things about the United States? Thanks in advance.

 

[AudioRage]

CIA Assination of Sadda-Oh wait, already tried that.

Um, I would say wait, gather evidence of these "chemical weapons" and drop commandos at the sites that they are supposedly at, that way, there's no chance of them getting moved.

Only problem is there had to be chemical weapons in the first place, which everyone knows there wasn't.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I just wish the governments had played the human rights card instead of the bloody:

"They have weapons of mass destruction and are insane enough to use them on us" card...


It was fairly obvious from the start that it would get shot down in flames....



Anyway, I agreed with the war. Not because of anything the government ever said. (Seriously, who trusts the government )

But because they should be better off in the end..


Gota go now, bye...

 

[pat_thetic]

I agreed with the war not because of the WMD's(people make such a big deal out of that... o well), more because I wanted the people in Iraq to not have Saddam as their leader.

 

[Dulrough]

Freedom means nothing unless your willing to fight with everything you have for it. The people of Iraq did not fight Saddam with everything they had. For most of them it was better to suffer and live then to die free.
That is why we cannnot help them.

 

[SFLUFAN]

I'd have maintained the status quo.

It would be preferable to keep Saddam and the Baathists in power to act as a counter balance to Iran rather than remove them and have the potential of another theocracy in the Middle East or worse yet, another terrorist camp breeding ground like Afghanistan.

I'm no pacifist either by the way - I fully supported the Afghanistan operation and any military action against Al-Qaida.

 

[pat_thetic]

I seriously doubt that the US would allow a Theocracy to be instituted....

 

[SFLUFAN]

And I don't see how the US can prevent it from happening. If "free" elections are to be held on January 31, 2005 then I'm afraid I don't see how the outcome would be any different.

 

[Ames]

Star Wars. With lasers and such. Can't do much harm to cities. :|

EDIT: By this, I mean to almost leave Iraq and set up a very powerful defence system.

Horrible plan...btw.

 

[AudioRage]

It simple really, if the Iraqi government doesn't turn out the way the US wants, they'll just retake power by force, declare Iraq not ready to govern itself, and occupy the country for as long as they please.

 

[SFLUFAN]

I really don't think the United States would do that at this point.

For one thing, there would be a near mutiny by the uniformed armed forces who are already very displeased with the way the entire Iraq situation was bungled. A long-term occupation will undoubtedly cause many senior officers to...how do I say this...seriously evaluate the civilian leadership of the United States

And another, the US elections will have a large influence on the shape of US policy in the future. A Kerry win would undoubtedly prevent that from happening and even a Bush victory would probably come with a Congress less willing to support the Administration.

 

[psyno]

I think it was wrong in almost every respect.

What was the goal? Human rights? If that's the case, man do we have a lot of countries to invade over the next few years... They're certainly not fooling me with that BS.

The facts are that there were no WMDs, Iraqis are not safer, Americans are not safer, the world is not safer, the US spent ungodly amounts of money, and thousands of people died. Tell me where you find humanity in that.

I'm not saying Iraq (more specifically Hussein) should have been ignored, but it could have been dealt with in more civil ways, and the Bush administration has really hurt US foreign relations and the image of the US to the world. Before, the US was just a bunch of greedy, arrogant, globalist, imperial pigs. Now we're downright evil.

Imagine if that money had been spent instead on reducing car accident fatalities, developing alternate energy sources, or even modernizing the counter-terrorism mechanism we already have. I just wish someone would tell Bush he's not in Texas anymore...

 

[AudioRage]

Yes, but think of the Oil.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Hmmm...even that would be a difficult motivating factor.

There is hardly any Iraqi oil flowing at the moment and I seriously doubt that significant amounts would be flowing in the future.

No, I really do believe that the US has just about played all of its cards as far as Iraq is concerned and that the neo-cons in the Administration have largely been discredited in favor of the more pragmatic approach advocated by the Department of State.

Just my opinion - I could be very wrong but I do live near Washington DC and so I hear things through the "grapevine". I'm a Republican too by the way

 

[Adidajs]

hindsight is definately 20/20 but we know that wmd's didn't exist.

it's sounds like a conspiracy theory, but i doubt we would have allowed the war if 9/11 hadn't have happened.

i concur with marksmanhl2 and sflufan; on one hand if we had to go to war, claim it's a human rights issue (scare those other oppressive regimes). on the other hand it would have nice to maintain the status quo and just keep Iraq under wraps. One thing i know - we should have maintained a tighter watch on the Oil-for-Food program. wow, that's some abuse going on there.

the $20,000 question: is iraq better off than it was 18months ago? if you answer that now, emphatically "no!". but i think that has yet to be answered. give it several years.

 

[pat_thetic]

I sware to god... If you people honestly think we went in for oil.... Ok, enlighten us where this oil is going? It obviously isn't going to me or anyone else in the US.

 

[SFLUFAN]

"i concur with marksmanhl2 and sflufan; on one hand if we had to go to war, claim it's a human rights issue (scare those other oppressive regimes). on the other hand it would have nice to maintain the status quo and just keep Iraq under wraps. One thing i know - we should have maintained a tighter watch on the Oil-for-Food program. wow, that's some abuse going on there."

As always, trust a Gator to come up with words of common sense

Have they fired Ron Zook as yet?

 

[Neutrino]

I agreed with the war not because of the WMD's(people make such a big deal out of that... o well), more because I wanted the people in Iraq to not have Saddam as their leader.

Um, since when have WMD's not been a big deal?

 

[SFLUFAN]

The war wasn't about oil. And it was only marginally about terrorism or WMD.

It was about the neo-conservative theories of geopolitics: that the key to establishing long-term peace and stability in the Middle East is to uproot the existing regimes and replace them with democratically elected governments.

The architect of this theory, Paul Wolfowitz (the current Assistant Secretay of Defense) has advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists since 1979.

 

[Rupertvdb]

It should never have come about, the world should not even be in this situation, there is no right way to deal with iraq because iraq is simply a symptom of how corrupt and misled the world is. There is far too much hate and it is down to nations leaders being arrogant, boarish and stubborn. Remove the plague of beaurocrats with self promoting agendas and we would have a start.

 

[pat_thetic]

Um, since when have WMD's not been a big deal?

I wasn't talking about the WMD's themselves... Bleh, that was a stupid statement, even though people are liked obsessed about how Bush lied about them... even though they know that wasn't the reason we went to war.... Um, nevermind.

 

[Adidajs]

The war wasn't about oil. And it was only marginally about terrorism or WMD.

It was about the neo-conservative theories of geopolitics: that the key to establishing long-term peace and stability in the Middle East is to uproot the existing regimes and replace them with democratically elected governments.

The architect of this theory, Paul Wolfowitz (the current Assistant Secretay of Defense) has advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists since 1979.

yes. i concur. no, ron zook got an extension. apparently they're in the preseason top-10 this year (really good recruiting class i hear)

I sware[sic] to god... If you people honestly think we went in for oil.... Ok, enlighten us where this oil is going? It obviously isn't going to me or anyone else in the US.

i think you're referring to me. i certainly didn't say that, nor do i claim that, nor do i believe that.
the oil-for-food program in the midst of embargo gave the iraqi people food and medical supplies in exchange for basically their sole export. Audits this year claim major abuses found within the program in which money was funneled into people's pockets and not into the program.

 

[pat_thetic]

It was funneled into Saddam's pockets.

 

[SFLUFAN]

"ron zook got an extension"

AAAAGGGGHHHHHH - another 8-4 season here we come

 

[Direwolf]

While I don't see a full reinvasion in the event that everything goes to hell...I'd have to say the number of bases we now have in Iraq might prove "persuasive."

 

[Neutrino]

I wasn't talking about the WMD's themselves... Bleh, that was a stupid statement, even though people are liked obsessed about how Bush lied about them... even though they know that wasn't the reason we went to war.... Um, nevermind.

No, I understood what you meant. I just meant that I still think the fact that no WMD's were ever found is still a rather large deal. I know some people agree with that and other's don't think it's really an issue.

To tell the truth, the longer this whole thing goes on the less and less sure I am about the real reasons the adminstration went to Iraq in the first place.

 

[crabcakes66]

My only view at this point is lets get it over with.


And lets vote bush's administration out of office before they can do any more damage.

 

[A2597]

well, I was for the war, I didn't really care about WMD, although they certainly were an issue. I feel the UN gave them ampel time to smuggel them into Iran though.

as for resolving the situation? Well, we have started with the handover of power, we NEED to mop up as MANY of the terrorist there as possible though, and now is the best time to do so. Every terrorist in the middle east is in Iraq trying to get some American blood. Sadly, this means that there will continue to be carbombings, suicide attacks, etc on US forces. As much as I'd love to just press a button and blow every single terrorist overthere sky high instantly, it doesn't work that way. The only was to get rid of them is to ferret them out, which means losses on our side as well.

Unfortunetally, until we have taken care of the terrorist in Iraq, we can't pull out, as the current government there just isn't ready to take on both building a nation and fighting a war on their own land.

Saddam got them into a massive mess, and while we have started to get them out, they still need help, and we along with the UN, are the ones available to give it. It's our responsibility to do so, whether you agree with the war or not. We know Bush is going to continue giving that aid, and we know Kerry won't. For me, it's another reason to vote Bush. For some reason, Kerry thinks playing Ostrich will make the terrorist ignore us, rather then bringing the war to the home front.

 

[Prince of China]

My only view at this point is lets get it over with.


And lets vote bush's administration out of office before they can do any more damage.

I would so do that but I'm Canadian

Anyways, what's Bush really trying to do?
Be Iraq's liberators, or Saddam's replacement?

 

[SFLUFAN]

I must respectfully disagree that Kerry will pull out of Iraq - he has publicly stated that he will do no such thing. The irony is that both Bush's and Kerry's positions on Iraq are now quite similar because Bush has had to return to the UN for assistance.

 

[CptStern]

the solution to iraq? easy, if the US stops propping up despots sooner or later they will be taken out by their own opposition. This could have been avoided decades ago if the US hadnt made saddam more powerful than he ever would have been alone.

Human rights issues never came into play in iraq, it was never a motivation to invade despite what the admin spoonfed americans. If it was they would have charged to the rescue of the Sudanese, Rwandans, congolese etc. No this was nothing more than an opportunity to put into power someone sympathetic to the US cause...just like in 1963 when the cia orchestrated a coup that put saddam into power. It's deja vu all over again.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

if the US stops propping up despots sooner or later they will be taken out by their own opposition.

good point stern.

here's what should have been done: leave saddam alone. he wasn't a threat to anyone in his current situation, and that is quite obvious. no WMDs, no military, he was nothing outside of his own country.

instead, we should have made more of an effort to track-down al-qaeda leadership and eliminate it. after the al-qaeda leadership had been significantly damaged, then we could have invaded iraq. if we wanted to make a case for the war on humanitarian grounds, we could have.

however, we must first have built a real coalition including all of western europe, with use of some of their troops (via nato/un). at this point we could have, on behalf of the major world powers (excepting china/india perhaps) demanded that the baathists step down from power and be exiled. then the un/nato would move in and we'd set-up a new government with much less trouble than we are having now.

obviously if the baathist refuse, we go to war with the aforementioned real coalition of force. also obviously, we should listen to our military leadership when they tell us how many troops will be needed on the ground, etc.

that's what should have been done. if we were unable to get enough support from the rest of the world, then we simply don't act. simple as that. it's called diplomacy.. something our president doesn't understand. over time, if we had an able diplomat for a leader, we'd be able to convince our allies that war is the necessary thing to do.

 

[Korgoth]

Hmmm, had the Bush administration allowed the continuation of weapons inspections by the crew that was already on the ground, and the findings still turned up nothing, would the American people still have been willing to go to war and suffer the financial/humanitarian burden of the occupation in which we find ourselves now? Personally, I don't think so. We wouldn't have had an option not to, that was the administrations choice from the get go. However, an entire disgruntle population makes for an extremely difficult re-election campaign.
We shouldn't have stuck our noses in Iraq, thats just my opinion. We should have stayed focused on Al-Qaeda and stuck to that. By taking a major chunk of our forces and placing them in Iraq we've pretty much allowed al-qaeda the chance to recruit and retrain a whole new generation of terrorists for us to battle once again.
What should we do now? Well, I think it would be in our best interests and in the interests of the Iraqi people if we would just leave the country all together. Keep a significant force on stand by in Saudi Arabia on the borders, but pull our entire presence out of Iraq, military and civillian contractors. Instead of doing the rebuilding ourselves and risking beheadings at the hands of terrorist resistance fighters, we take the billions of tax dollars we are spending over there and give it to the new government. They intern take that money and contract Iraqi workers to do the rebuilding. Not only is the economy of Iraq boosted, jobs are created and many happy Iraqi's can go about their lives without the feeling of opression from the coalition patrolling their streets day in and day out.

 

[Yuri]

Forgive me if this was already posted but I don't feel like reading.

Want to know what I think about Iraq? Well, I don't know. Because I can't know. Because I am not there first hand everywhere, I wasn't there first hand in Iraq before, and I don't know exactly what the U.S. government knew before we went. So I simply can't have an opinion. And it would be extremely hard to find all of this information. No news programs are ever completely biast.

From what I know, though, I think that Iraq shouldn't have been a war. Perhaps after more intellegence was captured or whatever... but I truly don't think any war should have been a war. People are experts at this, why can't we solve things with peace? After all, this war is only going to make the general opinion of the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.

On a final note, I hated how Bush led this whole thing on "weapons of mass destruction" which don't exist, and never did. But whatever, I can't really have an opinion, can I?

By the way, Badger, whats with "we;" I thought that you were from the motherland, old chap.

 

[Letters]

By the way, Badger, whats with "we;" I thought that you were from the motherland, old chap.

Because they went too?

 

[Yuri]

Shhhhhh, I don't pay attention to these things. Bleh.

 

[DarkStar]

Want to know what I think about Iraq? Well, I don't know. Because I can't know. Because I am not there first hand everywhere, I wasn't there first hand in Iraq before, and I don't know exactly what the U.S. government knew before we went. So I simply can't have an opinion. And it would be extremely hard to find all of this information. No news programs are ever completely biast.

How can you ever have an opinion on anything with that attitude?

 

[qckbeam]

What I am asking, is what do you personally think is/was the right way to solve the Iraq problem.

Do you mean what would have been the correct way to deal with Iraq pre-war, or what is the correct way to deal with it today?

The pre-war Iraq was not a problem. It posed no threat to us and, even though it's ruler was a dictator, it was stable. All we have done by invading is to create a brand new breeding ground for terrorists. We haven't found any of these terrible WMD's Saddam was said to have had by the US and British governments, and the country has been thrown into a violent turmoil. Our "liberation" hasn't done a whole lot of good; it has gotten a lot of people killed though.

Iraq in its current state is a problem. Iraqi citizens who lost family members and loved ones in US bombings/raids/etc., no matter how accidental those casualties may have been, are going to harbor a newfound hatred, or at the very least resentment, toward the US. Those violent uprisings led by groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) are going to find new recruits in people like that (and there are many).

The lack of WMD's really hurts the worldwide credibility of the United States. It was the reason we went to war. We didn't go for humanitarian efforts, we went because Saddam posed a serious threat to the United States according to US intelligence. It's a year later now and no weapons have been found. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq at all. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons should have littered the place according to what the US administration was saying. This obvious failure does nothing whatsoever to ease the anti-American sentiment that many people across the world seem to feel.

Charging into Iraq was foolhardy. When Middle Eastern terrorists have a vendetta against your country you do not go and wage a crusade against a Middle Eastern country with nothing built questionable motives, bad intelligence, and anger as your guide. We have wasted an absolutely ridiculous amount of money fighting the war in Iraq, and more importantly, we have wasted the lives of 972 men and women. What was it all for?

Also, please don't say hindsight is 20/20 or anything of that nature. Much of what we are seeing today in Iraq was in fact predicted before the war began. If normal people could predict it and the US government could not, what does that say?

 

[SFLUFAN]

"If normal people could predict it and the US government could not, what does that say?"

The sad part is that it was predicted by some arms of the US government, most notably the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in a report that was submitted to the National Security Council but was largely ignored and/or overriden by the neo-con civilian leadership at the White House and the Pentagon.

Your post was a very well-reasoned and intelligent discourse on why the war was a mistake and I'm in full agreement with your premises. In Saddam Hussein, the US and the West had a largely emasculated dictator whose evil would largely be centered within his own country; Saddam was no fool - he knew damned well that any further adventurism or terrorist activities against the US would result in his destruction.

Now, we have a vaccum into which jihadists, Islamic militants, and Iranian-style theocrats can seize power and turn Iraq into a Taliban-like state...a Taliban-like state with the world's second largest known oil reserves.

As I've said previously, I'm not a pacifist - I'm a former officer in the United States Army and I fully supported the military intervention in Afghanistan but Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time with results that cannot be anything but negative.