Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?[W:272]

[faithful_servant]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

What rationale would you have used to justify going to war in Iraq? Or do we just go to war now because we feel like it?

Defending the innocent and helpless, enforcing the rule of law when it comes to int'l treaties.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Iran is very likely inching its way to building nuclear weapons. When do we invade?



Iran has been heavily involved in terrorism for years, including supporting organizations like Hezbollah. When do we invade?



Same for Iran. When do we invade?



Same for Iran. When do we invade?

QUOTE]

If I had my way, years ago.

But at any rate, just because the invasion of Iran would be fully justified does not mean the United States is in any way obligated to do to it what we did to Iraq. There is no "fairness doctrine" when it comes to foreign affairs.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

So now we are in the business of removing despotic leaders? Why are we not in the other countries that refuse to allign themselves with our interests or who have brutal leaders?

SH opened the door to our stepping in when he invaded Kuwait, a nation that we are treaty-bound to help defend. Once they attacked our ally, we had the full legal right and moral obligation to remove him.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

There you err. True that we spent too much and we certainly were not tough enough to secure peace. But the Security Council had required Iraq to show its hand, the US had drawn a line and Saddam refused comply. It was right to remove the man.

Don't bring the U.N into this. The U.N never gave it's approval for an invasion, something Bush promised Congress before the vote on the authorization. Had Bush listened to the U.N. there would have been no invasion.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Can you name an Arab country that does not have ties to groups that the US designates as "Palestinian terrorists"?

Since we can't deal with them all, we shouldn't deal with any of them?? Iraq was the worst (by far according to HRW and AI) of the offenders and they pretty much opened the doors to us stepping in.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

And as has been pointed out so many times, Hillary - like the rest of the Dems in Congress who voted for the war, were doing so due to the intel that they had been given by the Bush administration...the same information that Colin Powell used in his speech to the UN, and the same information that Bush and company KNEW that was not from reliable intel.

And where did the Bush admin get the info? Oh, yea from all our intel agencies.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Iran is very likely inching its way to building nuclear weapons. When do we invade?



Iran has been heavily involved in terrorism for years, including supporting organizations like Hezbollah. When do we invade?



Same for Iran. When do we invade?



Same for Iran. When do we invade?

Or is the violation of a cease-fire from an old war the most critical trigger?

While some of what you say is correct, it doesn't really answer the key question: Why then? What happened in 2003? Iraq had been doing the same things for years. There were no indications Hussein or Iraq had started any new WMD programs. They weren't being particularly belligerent to any neighbors or US allies. There were no credible links between Iraq and AQ, even at that time. There was no "Axis of Evil," nor any indications they were working in concert -- especially since Iran and Iraq hate each other. Congress passed a bill (with Clinton signing) to authorize a non-military push for regime change all the way back in 1998.

I have my answer, of course. But what do you tell your students, if they ask that question...?

The day that they open a door for us to legally take them out. So far, all they've done is break a couple of rules, they haven't invaded any nations that we are treaty bound to defend.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

We had several other reasons aside from WMD to go into Iraq. But had we known that there were no WMD and no real capability to get nukes I doubt if we would have gone in.

Yet the reason why we finished the job there wasn't WMDs, it was REPEATED violations of the cease fire agreement that triggered the re-engagement of hostilities.

 

[joG]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Don't bring the U.N into this. The U.N never gave it's approval for an invasion, something Bush promised Congress before the vote on the authorization. Had Bush listened to the U.N. there would have been no invasion.

Did you read the resolutions? And did you listen to Bush's speech before the UN? Yep. The invasion was okay. But you are right that there would have been no invasion, had everyone followed the Resolution through. But when Russia, Germany and France backed Saddam giving him the feeling that he could cross the line, it was right to enforce it.

 

[kjwins]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

I think its safe to say we invaded for the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. It was a war for corporate capital gain, & the tax payer footed the bill.

Its was a Project for a New American Century, & a war crime if you go by the Nuremberg Trials. Bush & Obama should be charged with war crimes.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

If I had my way, years ago.

You didn't answer the key question: Why 2003? Iraq had not done anything new. Even before the war, claims that they were an imminent threat to the US or its allies was transparently false. What changed? Why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran? Why didn't we invade Iran immediately after taking down Hussein?

just because the invasion of Iran would be fully justified does not mean the United States is in any way obligated to do to it what we did to Iraq.

You're missing the point. Namely: The alleged reasons to invade Iraq just don't add up. If we actually applied those standards, we'd be invading a lot more countries and enacting a lot more regime changes. We wouldn't hesitate over Syria or Libya; we wouldn't prop up Mubarak; we'd deal with Yemen; we'd act in Bahrain and possibly Crimea. We'd intervene all over Africa, especially in nations like Congo and the CAR. And yet we don't.

(Not to mention how we spent decades propping up authoritarian regimes with their very own terrorist tactics, as part of proxy wars against the USSR and unaffiliated Communists. But I digress...)

Looks to me like there is a glaring omission in your analysis. Maybe you ought to work on that.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

I think its safe to say we invaded for the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. It was a war for corporate capital gain, & the tax payer footed the bill.

Which would have been defensible cause for war. Our security with the Iraqi oil supply has not been nearly as fortuitous as the anti-war crowd was fearful of, unfortunately.

Instead we focused on the arduous task of setting up a democracy.

At least if it had been truly about the oil, we could have gained something from it instead of playing humanitarian.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Did you read the resolutions? And did you listen to Bush's speech before the UN? Yep. The invasion was okay. But you are right that there would have been no invasion, had everyone followed the Resolution through. But when Russia, Germany and France backed Saddam giving him the feeling that he could cross the line, it was right to enforce it.

Ye another falsehood about the invasion. It was illegal under international law like much of what GW Bush did.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Which would have been defensible cause for war. Our security with the Iraqi oil supply has not been nearly as fortuitous as the anti-war crowd was fearful of, unfortunately.

Instead we focused on the arduous task of setting up a democracy.

At least if it had been truly about the oil, we could have gained something from it instead of playing humanitarian.

There were some that gained, mostly those involved in military contracts. This problem about "war for profit" has still not been dealt with even though Eisenhower warned us about it over 60 years ago. I believe all military contracts during times of troop involvement should be strictly non-profit.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

You didn't answer the key question: Why 2003? Iraq had not done anything new. Even before the war, claims that they were an imminent threat to the US or its allies was transparently false. What changed? Why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran? Why didn't we invade Iran immediately after taking down Hussein?



You're missing the point. Namely: The alleged reasons to invade Iraq just don't add up. If we actually applied those standards, we'd be invading a lot more countries and enacting a lot more regime changes. We wouldn't hesitate over Syria or Libya; we wouldn't prop up Mubarak; we'd deal with Yemen; we'd act in Bahrain and possibly Crimea. We'd intervene all over Africa, especially in nations like Congo and the CAR. And yet we don't.

(Not to mention how we spent decades propping up authoritarian regimes with their very own terrorist tactics, as part of proxy wars against the USSR and unaffiliated Communists. But I digress...)

Looks to me like there is a glaring omission in your analysis. Maybe you ought to work on that.

I've explained it. Iraq was easy. Low handing fruit. The American people already thought of Iraq as an enemy so obtaining political support was easy. Using the base infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait made it easy as well.

 

[celticwar17]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

So we created an even better breeding ground for terrorists at the expense of trillions and that constitutes "easiest"?

Yes, through our poor handling of the Iraq war

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

There were some that gained, mostly those involved in military contracts. This problem about "war for profit" has still not been dealt with even though Eisenhower warned us about it over 60 years ago. I believe all military contracts during times of troop involvement should be strictly non-profit.

And what do you do when NO corporation in the world will deal with the American defense department?

 

[Visbek]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

The day that they open a door for us to legally take them out. So far, all they've done is break a couple of rules, they haven't invaded any nations that we are treaty bound to defend.

Uh... wha?

Iraq hadn't invaded any sovereign nations (allied or otherwise) any time near the 2003 time frame. They were openly willing to have inspectors comb Iraq looking for WMD's. They didn't do anything between 2000 and 2003 that qualifies as a serious violation of any agreements.

Neither 688 or 1441 licensed the use of force in 2003. Kofi Annan, among others, believed the invasion was a violation of the UN charter.

And, last but certainly not least... It is not the purpose of international law to provide excuses to invade sovereign nations.

You want to try that one again?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

And what do you do when NO corporation in the world will deal with the American defense department?

This.....

 

[Fiddytree]

Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

There were some that gained, mostly those involved in military contracts. This problem about "war for profit" has still not been dealt with even though Eisenhower warned us about it over 60 years ago. I believe all military contracts during times of troop involvement should be strictly non-profit.

War for national/kingdom profit has been the de facto rationale for war for ages. What Eisenhower was mostly worried about was the power of decision being taken away from State leadership.

 

[joG]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Ye another falsehood about the invasion. It was illegal under international law like much of what GW Bush did.



Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

I don't think I would take Annan's word for the time of day. Did you read the things I proposed?

 

[joG]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Yes, through our poor handling of the Iraq war

It was less the handling of the war than its aftermath, that has caused the problems.

 

[joG]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

I think its safe to say we invaded for the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. It was a war for corporate capital gain, & the tax payer footed the bill.

Its was a Project for a New American Century, & a war crime if you go by the Nuremberg Trials. Bush & Obama should be charged with war crimes.

Don't be silly. The war had nothing to do with possession of the energy resources as history has shown. And interpreting the invasion as a war crime might fit Putin's propaganda, but it is just that and doesn't hold up under the light of evidence.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

Why was it the correct one? Every rationale provided to us was false. Iraq was far from having any tangible weapons of mass destruction. They were not harboring terrorists. You can't argue it is a better, safer place today than it was under Saddam, and nothing we could have done would have resolved the centuries old cultural conflicts in the region. How was it correct?

US did find Iraq WMD | New York Post
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Report: U.S. kept secret chemical weapons finds in Iraq - CNN.com

Unless you don't believe that CNN, the NY Times or the NY Post are credible sources, we did find and destroy chemical weapons (colloquially known as weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq.

IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

And Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.

The only lies come from the left claiming this was about oil.

What is funny is how the left is trying to claim that Hillary's e-mail gate and Benghazi stupidity is "old news" and "no one cares" while they try to rehash blame Bush 7 years after he left office.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Is there anyonw left defending the decision to go into Iraq?

And where did the Bush admin get the info? Oh, yea from all our intel agencies.

No, OUR intel agencies did their job and told Bush what he needed to know...but Bush didn't want to listen:

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
...
No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.
...
The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a **** about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”

In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, “Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity.” Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.

Okay? Our intel services told Bush what he needed to hear...but that wasn't what he wanted to hear. He effectively lied us into war. None of the senators - Democratic or Republican - had heard that what they'd been told was not what the actual intelligence said.