Is WMD’s were not the true justification for war with Iraq, why would a military action have not been necessary if Iraq showed it had disarmed?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/bush.speech.transcript/
I think I’m safe in saying that Gulf War III (remember Gulf War I was the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88) well, Gulf War III will probably be viewed in 20 years from now as one of the USA’s low points diplomatically. She dragged in some loyal allies, and managed to alienate a truckload of others who probably would have wished to be involved under more “convincing circumstances”. In choosing the course she did, I think history will look upon Gulf War III, and in particular the dreadful mismanagement for at least 6 months after the commencement therein, as a real low point in the USA’s modern political resume.
And it’s a shame, a real shame for mine. I love the USA. I love her people. But I genuinely believe that for all the good which COULD have evolved in Iraq, with every passing day, the possibility of such good is being squandered in a sea of nationalistic bravura which allows zero room for compromise. It breaks my heart actually because ultimately, those poor bastards in Iraq are the ones whose lives have turned to shit, it seems to me.
So, in answer to your OP, I honestly feel that the USA has gone about things the wrong way - and in doing so - has made matters worse. I truly believe that there was a genuinely altruistic consensus amongst the UN Security Council (prior to about November 2002) that “we need to fucking clean Iraq up - for the good of the Middle East”. But the USA totally went about the matter the wrong way and introduced all manner of red herrings and dubious cases for “going in” - and in doing so, squandered the opportunity to do it the right way. And worst of all, alienated all the good will which was built up during the Kosovo campaign - that is, the ability to work in unison with NATO countires to get the job done.
What makes you think Mr. Bush is telling the truth in that speech ? At the time, the decision to go to war was already made, and he full well knew it. You don’t deploy 200.000 troops, carrier groups etc. and then shrug and go home. At the time, Iraq could not have disarmed in a way that would’ve satisfied the US. Those troops were going home by the way of Baghdad, one way or the other. (The message to the Iraqis in general, OTOH, was loud and clear: Get rid of the tyrant, surrender, and we’ll be as gentle as can be. Would’ve been a better outcome, but there you have it…)
As it happens, that speech is overflowing with WMD references that has been demonstrated to all but the true believers to be so much hot air. Why assume that the rest of the speech is any more truthful ?
This article adds some more fuel to the argument that the Bush adm. is doing some serious back-pedalling on the WMD front:
So, he really wasn’t an immediate threat? And the scare-mongering about how he might use them at any time was actually irrelevant? I’m not sure how the administration is going to spin this “admission.”
Look, the fact of the matter is this: After 9/11 the ends justify the means. Iraq was not about WMD. It was about the long-term war on terrorism.
I know that’s difficult for some people to accept but that’s the reality. September 11th was not an anomolous blip in world events. It set an unbelievably dangerous precident. It showed just how powerful a small group of devoted terrorists can be. And in response we must show how powerful the US can be. And a perfect way to do that was to oppose a powerful and openly hostile arab regime and then brush it aside militarily.
I know this is very politically incorrect, but we must do to the arabs what we did to the Japanese. We must break them. We must destroy this notion of fanatical hatred for the outside world and the idea that a murderous, tyrannical dictatorship is better than a western democracy so long as its ‘arab’.
The middle east has squandered trillions in oil revenue and they’re no closer to being a democratic, moral, progressive, modern civilization now than they were 100 years ago.
After 9/11 their time is up. We are going to drag them into the 21st century, kicking & screaming and with a bayonet to their throats if necessary.
I think the problem with your opinion Hail Ants is that it is against the wrong country. The Iraq war is more like targeting China after Pearl Harbor happened.
Yes and no. Unfortunately the country most responsible, Saudi Arabia, is still pretending they’re an ally. And in alot of ways they still are.
The Bush Administration is basically saying to them, “See Iraq? Straighten up or you’re next!”
Also, global terrorism is not as easily defined (nor as easily fought) by national borders the way the Pearl Harbor attack (and WWII) was.
The theory was that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors and the region as a whole, and the reason it was an effective threat was WMD, which it had shown a willingness to use in the Iranian war and against its own people.
If Iraq had disarmed and shown satisfactory proof of the disarmament, the threat to the region and the neighbors would have been sufficiently reduced.
Simply put, if they weren’t a threat to the region, we wouldn’t have had to attack them. Or so the theory goes.
I’m not against war. I believe it can be necessary. I also believe that Saddam had learned his lesson and was not going to attack another country while the US was watching. I think all Iraq was merely, prior to the war, a training ground for our pilots and electornic counter measures.
I suspect you don’t know your history. Maybe you should read this book: All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (There is even a sample chapter in that link.)
No one can say what would have happened differently in the Middle East had the U.S. not overthrown the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953.
However, it is factually inaccurate to say that the middle east (of which Iran is a part, no?) prefers a murderous, tyrannical dictatorship over a western democracy. In the case of Iran, their democracy was overthrown and replaced with a dictatorship friendly to the U.S.
With what money are we going to take down the next country? With the Bush tax cuts coming into play, with the Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding draining the coffer, eventually we won’t be able to fund the “war on terror.”
You do realize that “the ends justify the means” is the exact line of thinking that justifies terrorism, don’t you?
Just suppose for a moment, that Saddam Hussein had a huge stockpile of chenical waepons, and was about to unleash them upon Israel. The Israelis would have had no alternative than to drop their stock of nuclear bombs on Iraq, probably triggering WWIII. So itmay well be that this war was necessary, but for diplomatic reasons, the truth can never be known (except perhaps 50 years from now).
As an aside, “waepons of mass destruction” have been around for years now-yet the inherent sanity (and fear of retaliation in kind) has kept people from using them. Take sarin gas-the French had developed this gas, and the shells to deliver it. Yet, even when faced with defeat, they did not use this waepon on the invading germans (in 1940)-why? Because Germany would have retaliated in kind. What we are faced with here (the islamic terrorists) is an enemy that has no such scruples, and has demonstarted a willingness to kill innocent people without compunction.
I wil make this simple for charities sake. - What do you mean by “must Break Them” ?
-
With bombs and missiles ? So how do you “break terrrorists” ? The terrorist cause would have been broken a long time ago. The US has no lack of those weapons.
-
So killing them is the solution (now with guns) ? Maybe… but then loads of other terrorists are showing up to take their place. So no military only solution.
-
Maybe you mean break their funding ? Nope…the US is fueling discontentment and anger. Money keeps flowing.
-
Maybe break the terrorists Moral or their “better than thou” attitude ? Nope. The US is showing that Arabs have good reason to have hated them until now. Giving terrorists a certain “legitimacy” even beyond the Arab world.
-
Maybe you mean Break every Arab country until the devastation means no one will survive ? Well that genocide… it might solve the Arab problem… but I wouldnt want to live in a world like that. “Heil Shrub”.
So if you could “explain” what you mean by “Break them” it might help…
Well, yes, that’s what terrorists do. That’s what Saddam did. That’s what Bush is doing. Where’s the difference? Is there any difference? Or is that question just too difficult for you?
You are, of course, neglecting that a attack on Iraq was publically promoted by many of the same people that are currently in the US cabinet (or whatever you call it) five freaking years ago, as an entirely strategic manoeuvre.
9/11 and the “War on Terror” in actual fact provided the leverage needed to get public support for a war to protect:
Has the US stopped from bombing Urban targets ? So they are willing to kill innocents as “collateral damage” ? This isnt as firm a ground as some americans might think it is. At least Saddam wasnt killing for electoral or money reasons… 
Iraq does not equal Al Qaeda.
We must break them of the notion that whether or not you are muslim is the defining quality of a human being’s life. And of the idea that you can base a modern, civilized society and culture on a literal interpretation of religious writings.
We must, as I said, do what we did to Japan after WWII. Show them that:
[ul][li]It is not God’s will that people of different races and religions are inferior[/li][li]Their Kings, leaders etc. are not divine but just people, like them[/li][li]That their country’s territory is not “holy”[/li][li]Legal castes and classes amongst societies are wrong[/li][li]Women are not property[/li]Pursuing a life of happiness and/or material wealth is not synonymous with being amoral and decadent[/ul]
The US does not bomb urban areas indiscriminately. The Law of Armed Conflict (Yes, there is such a thing) calls for the attacker to weight the benefits of the attack against the damages that can be expected. The US does not bomb civilians to break an enemy’s will; it bombs civilian areas to destroy the enemy’s commane, control and communication capability.
Yes, civilians are killed. Yes, loss of civilian life is tragic. But compare US campaigns to the campaigns of past, and current, wars (Chechnya, anyone? Dresden? Rolling Thunder?) and you can see the effort put in to minimize civilian damages.
At this time, it is not possible to wage a war and eliminate collateral damage. If you think no war is justified, than there are no justifiable civilian casualties. If you believe a war is justified, then civilian casualties are justified if a real effort is made to minimize them.
Having said that, I question the value of that last airstrike launched to destroy the building where it was thought Saddam & Co were. Yes, there was a good chance of killing him, but would his death have outweighed the civilian casualties incurred?
I’m not so sure.
But the US does NOT kill civilians without compunction. The US does much more than most belligerents to avoid civilian casualties.