That’s not sarcasm, Avalonian. It’s mockery.
Naturally, we appreciate the benefits and lament the costs.
Can you answer this binary question:
Suppose you had the power to undo the war. You could undo all the death and destruction, but you would put the Baath regime back into power. Would you leave things as they are now or undo them?
In other words, in your opinion, Did the war do more harm than good?
I concurr in the result, I vigorously dissent in the judgement that was used to bring it about
december you keep posting false dilemmas. there are more than two options.
If my neighbor beats his wife should I go shoot him or should I do nothing?
The problem, december, is that this is not a binary issue, as much as you might like to make it one. Once you step out into the big bad “real” world, you’ll find that very few issues are binary in nature, and can’t be broken down by such simplistic choices.
My answer would be something like Blalron’s: While the result may be good, but the route used to get there leaves much to be desired. The improvement needs to be made there.
sailor’s response is also entirely appropriate and on-point.
Two months is “endless patience”, but twelve years is “none”?
Of course, now that Saddam’s regime is no more, we can be reasonable sure that no one is actively trying to hide the WMD. So we have a great deal more time.
Well, since we have found the mobile bio-weapons labs that Colin Powell said were there, it would seem the intelligence reports were accurate. Those same intelligence sources also made clear that the Iraqis were making strenuous efforts to hide them.
Again, spending twelve years while Saddam plays a shell game is being reasonable, but finding the mobile labs after a few weeks requires having “the patience of a saint”. I’m not sure I agree with your time table.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t believe I’m posting in another “was the war justified” thread…
Here’s my take, and I’m trying to remember the various posts I’ve made on this subject over the past few months:
The US had a moral right, though not a moral obligation, to invade Iraq and overthrow S.H. This is based on the cease fire terms of Gulf War I, which were not adhered to by S.H. (BTW, I’d also argue that those terms were more or less impossible for a sovereign nation to adhere to.) We actually should’ve taken him out during Gulf War I for invading another country.
I was not really concerned about the alledged WMDs. We had that country surrounded, and anything he had was safer there (from terrorists) than 2 dozen other countries I could rattle off in about 10 seconds. I did’t find Powell’s presentation to the UN very convincing. I didn’t see all the coverage, but what I did see was something like this: “Here’s a building that could be used for chemical weapons. Here’s a truck out front one day. On the next day the truck was gone”. I didn’t get it.
As much as I would have loved to see the Iraqi people free, I did not think it was worth American lives to accomplish that end. I was skeptical that we could install a lasting democracy there and expect(ed) to see some strongman back in power in 5-10 yrs time. Probably nowhere near as bad as S.H., and hopefullly more along the lines of Musharref (sp?) in Pakestan.
I would not have initiated the war, but I think it was a tough call. I can see that reasonable people could look at all the aspects of this and come to different conclusions. I don’t believe that Bush et al have some hidden agenda, but I will freely admit that we’d never be talking about this if oil were not involved.
I do not believe that the UN would ever have gotten rid of S.H. He played their game perfectly and could’ve strung that organization along for decades to come.
I think it is possible for this to come out good-- A more or less stable gov’t in Iraq and possibly a solution to the I/P problem. If I were a betting man though, I’d bet against both, but I do think the I/P issue has a better chance of being resolved in a post-S.H. world.
Having invaded Iraq, the US needs to clean up that situation and tone down the rhetoric about possible invasions of other countries. The one country that scares me more than all the others is N.K. I don’t know the answer to that situation, but if I were a terrorist they’d be on my list as one of the prime places to shop for weaons to use against the US.
I’m not very concerned about the “rift” between the US and Europe. We’re intertwined economically and are going to be allies for years to come. We have many more things in common than we have differences. If Europe begins to act more independently of the US because of this, I think that’s great.
One more thing:
It was a tragedy that many Iraqis died during the war. But I believe that more Iraqis would’ve died under any other scenario. S.H remains in power = more Iraqis dead. If, and this would’ve been a miracle, the Iraqi people had risen up to overthrow S.H. = more Iraqis dead. As per above, I don’t believe the UN would **ever **have gotten rid of the brutal, evil Dictator that was S.H.
Actually there are fewer than two options. There’s only one option, since we do not have the power to undo the war.
But, answering the binary hypothetical question allows the discussion to move forward. E.g., if you believe that Bush’s Iraq war in 2003 did more net good than Bush’s non-Iraq war in 2002 or Bill Clinton’s non-Iraq war in 1998.
“Of course, now that Saddam’s regime is no more, we can be reasonable sure that no one is actively trying to hide the WMD.”
Totally false. The remnants of Baath regime are still around. Some of them almost certainly know where they are kept (assuming they exist). They have more of an incentive to sell the weapons to terrrorists than before the war. The borders are pretty leakly and the country is quite chaotic. By any rational analysis there is a far greater chance of the weapons being sold to terrorists now. This was a major reason the war was idiotic even on its own terms. It has increased the likelihood of what it was supposed to prevent ie. terrorists obtaining Iraqi WMD if they exist.
Kinda off topic, by the EU decided to send 1400 Peacekeepers, (700 of them French) to the Democratic Republic of Congo today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2962948.stm
1400 isn’t nearly enough to save the situation.
I agree almost entirely with John Mace (John, you have become one of my favorite GD posters of late). I am pissed that the admin lied about the WMDs, or at least exaggerated the threat (though to be honest I never really bought it anyway), the argument that even though a war based on human rights could be legitimate, but if that’s not the stated reason then it’s illegitimate, seems to me to be a variant of the genetic fallacy.
I was against going to war, but if we were going to go, the real goal should have been the establishment of an Arab democracy (which has not existed since the Syrians wrecked Lebanon) which could be a reliable ally. However, one could argue that we had some obligation to liberate Iraq to make up for supporting Saddam Hussein for so long - this was a large part of Christopher Hitchens’ argument. I think this would be especially true after our abandonment of the Kurds in 1991. Consider as a parallel situation the obligation of the US to help in securing East Timorese independence a few years ago, which I feel resulted largely from our tacit (or even perhaps explicit) support of Suharto’s invasion.
Oh, forgot to mention some interesting reading on the topic of the different reasons for invading Iraq: Thomas Friedman’s column today (NY Times, free registration required).
Fang:
Thanks for the comments.
I did read Friedman’s column and I often agree with the guy, but he kind of left me thinking “huh?” today. Of all the Arab states out there, I think Iraq was low on the list of fostering Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, a post-S.H. Iraq is more likely to be a breeding ground for that creed even if it were to become fairly democratic.
I do believe it will give pause to some of the more blantant acts of other gov’ts in that region, but probably just drive those activities more underground than route them out altogether.
Iran’s gotta be a bit nervous, though, what with Iraq and Afganistan being two of their border-sharing neighbors.
Thomas Friedman is an idiot. No, make that a reprehenshible piece of garbage. To argue that the war was, and should have been, fought just because we needed to kick some Muslim ass–any Muslim ass–after 9/11 . . . that’s disgusting.
Not only were there no WMDs, but the war also increased the chance that they would be sold to terrorists. 
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Actually, I am worried about the scenario you lay out, CP. Another worrisome scenario is that WMDs may have have been moved into Syria, where they could wind up in the hands of terrorists.
I guess over time we’ll find out what the real story is.
Actually December, we know now.
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair’s position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a “bureaucratic” excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is “swimming” in oil.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
Using Occam’s razor on this situation suggests rather convincingly that Bush had his mind made up well in advance and his administration has been trying to justify it ever since.
cj
That’s based on a phony story, using a doctored quote by the Guardian. Their fraud is fully exposed on this thread.
I think his distinction between “was” and “should have been” is pretty easily visible in his separating the “real reason” and the “right reason”.
Many radioactive materials that could be used to manufacture a radiological dirty bomb were reportedly looted.