Was the war in Iraq justified?

[BurtWorm]

Even assuming that the Bushists are right about Saddam's brutality? Was the US justified in attacking Iraq in March 2003?

Let's hear from some of those in this forum who have been criticizing the forum at large for going easy on Saddam as well as anyone who is skeptical of the US position on Saddam's brutality.

[ohio_liberal]

1. Absolutely not

What exactly has the US gained? Nothing that I can see.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. That was not the reason given to justify the war.

That is the reason given to explain why it didn't matter that the reasons we did give were a pack of lies.

[BurtWorm]

7. You're exactly right.

It seems that this retrofitted justification for the war is being adopted by more than just the Bushists, too. :eyes:

[Debs]

91. As a rule of thumb

If you have to change your rationale for an action more than twice. You are lying your ass off. No war whose rationale was sold with lies can possibly be called justified.

[Sanity Claws]

3. Not justified

The country is not more secure but less secure as a result of the Iraq war. BUsh has created generations of people who now hate the US. He has also created a deficit that hinders the US in terms of future security.

[Upfront]

4. Good God!

You must be kidding.

[BurtWorm]

10. Kidding about what?

It's kind of difficult to kid with a question.

[malaise]

5. The war was illegal

and it cannot be justified - it was about controlling oil and water -the Israelis want that water big time and Bushco want the oil.

[mike_c]

6. no it was not-- there's not even room for ambiguity here, IMO....

There is no compelling justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Even the neo-con PNAC empire building arguments are flawed, IMO-- let alone the justifications and other lies floated for public consumption.

[tavalon]

94. Did Richard Perle actually say whats in your sig line? n/t

[mike_c]

107. it's been widely reported-- do a Google seach for sources...

...so although I didn't hear him say it, I am reasonably confident that the quote is accurate.

[BurtWorm]

8. Interesting that the critics of Galloway and other skeptics

aren't jumping to answer the question. I wonder why the sudden reticence.

[Vladimir]

9. They attacked in 2003, no?

the question does not, of course, need answering.

[BurtWorm]

14. Thanks.

It was made clear to Blair that the war was going to happen in 2002, but the war didn't actually begin until after the UN charade.

As for the need for an answer, I'm very interested in what those who have been arguing that DU is too easy on Saddam have to say. Those people, I think, do need to answer.

[chicagojoe]

11. NO. NO. NO. Saddam sucks, but

have more than 100,000 people had to die just to remove one asshole?
Bush is a puppet front for an insidious group of people bent on world domination, and they have put OUR BRAVE TROOPS in harms way.
I'm forbidden by law to say what I think should befall Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. If I did, I'd be "deleted", I'm sure.

[Massacure]

12. Justified to overthrow Saddam? Of course. Justified to let Bush run it? No

It didn't take long for Bush to loose the support of the Iraqis.

[BurtWorm]

15. Even the Bush administration knew there was no justification for the war.

Which was why the intelligence had to be "fixed." So how can you say there was justification for it?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Going to war for the express purpose of deposing a leader

is not acceptable as a just cause for war and hasn't been for something like 400 years.

[Debs]

92. Not to mention that even pragmatically

we should not be in the regime change business because history conclusively shows WE SUCK AT IT. See, Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile

[walldude]

114. You forgot Poland!!!

Oops I ment Panama...

[LynnTheDem]

40. Shouldn't that have been up to the Iraqis to decide?

WE were "justified" in overthrowing THEIR government?

Interesting.

So China would be justified in overthrowing OUR government.

Don't think I'd like that; I'd be called a "dead-end bush-lover".

[bpilgrim]

49. PREVENTIVE WAR is always ILLEGAL and so is REGIME CHANGE

which is why the UK NEVER endorsed either one of those reasons.

peace

[Zhade]

76. So...if Clinton had illegally invaded Iraq, it would have been okay?

Am I reading you correctly?

[Massacure]

77. Depends

If he had the approval of the American people before hand, and respected the wishes of the Iraqi citizens after overthrowing Saddam, then yes I would approve of it.

[Zhade]

85. So you would approve of illegally invading a country...

...if Americans supported the action, regardless of its illegality?

What if the Iraqis' wishes BEFORE Hussein was overthrown were that we DIDN'T invade? What then?

[LynnTheDem]

89. Who cares what the Iraqis want? Or any other nation's peoples?

We know best what's best for them.

:sarcasm:

[Zhade]

95. That's the vibe I'm starting to feel...

NT!

[BurtWorm]

103. And how would we or anyone know what "the Iraqis" wanted anyway?

Let alone who are "the Iraqis?"

:wtf:

[Zhade]

108. A most excellent question - which Iraqis? Ones like Chalabi?

It's not like we could have polled the Iraqi people as a whole, given Hussein's unlikely willingness to allow them to participate in a discussion of his overthrow.

But let's pretend we could have done so, and the results came out 50/50 - what would the U.S. have done at that point?

Suppose it came out 51/49 against/for an invasion. Would we still have invaded, despite the Iraqi people exercising a bit of democracy and saying "NO INVASION"? If we did, wouldn't that have been violating the Iraqis' democratic decision?

Now, flip the results, so that a razor-thin majority approved of an invasion to rid themselves of Hussein. Wouldn't that be violating the rights of the minority to, you know, not be blown up, tortured, disappeared, and collectively punished?

I fail to see any scenario where our friend can argue persuasively that an illegal invasion (and later occupation) could be justified.

[Massacure]

110. Hussein was doing things he shouldn't have. He deserved to go.

50% of Americans may like Bush, but I wouldn't have any objections to Canada overthrowing him on account of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

[BurtWorm]

112. Really?

As much as I can't stand Bush, and as much as I believe he should be tried for Abu Ghraib, I don't want Canada or anyone else coming in and ousting him just because they think it's the thing to do. Only if they knew he was committing some kind of genocide or some other majorly dangerous crimes would I find it acceptable for some other country to intervene.

Are you serious about your position? It seems to me to be an invitation to anarchy among governments. That was my objection to the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't rational, meaning it was arbitrary. If all international actions were as arbirtrary, I shudder to think of the results.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. treaty of westphalia 1648.

We (western civ.) agreed that nations marching around deposing rulers that they didn't like was a Real Bad Idea (tm) and led to things like 80 YEARS OF CONTINUAL WARFARE.

Since then, and much more recently, we have legally bound ourselves to several international treaty organizations that forbid initiating war, and we have executed people for violating these rules. Our treaty obligations spell out exactly what are just causes for war, and toppling bad guys is not one of them. One might hold the opinion that it is just jolly fine to get rid of rulers we don't like by invading their countries and killing lots of people and generally wrecking their stuff and taking their treasure, but it is a treaty violation and a war crime.

[bpilgrim]

121. who are you talking about? the neoCONs?

so would you support an external invasion of America now?

peace

[Seeing Red]

13. A report from WITHIN Bush's OWN adminstration

stated that Hussein's human rights violations, etc. etc. WERE NOT enough to justify the US going into Iraq.

That's why they went with the WMD lie in the first place

[KaliTracy]

16. nope, not justified... and I

asked my congresspeople to think about the reasons before going to final vote on the matter.. Fat lot of good it did.... this was my letter
**

What guarantees do we have?

War is never anything anyone wants. I understand that. And I understand that there are many, many factors contributing to the White House position that we need to strike quickly and "cleanly" to complete this job of ousting Saddam... but I am not sure that all of these positions have been explicitly stated to the American People and our allies. How can President Bush be so confident that with this attack we will engender a change to democracy? Even Dick Cheney has been quoted more than once against the US going in the Middle East for such a reason. In 1991, he was quoted in the New York Times, on April 13 that

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?**

and more recently in an interview in 1996

if Saddam wasn't there, his successor probably wouldn't be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States; for the next hundred years it's going to be the world's supply of oil. We've got a lot of friends in the region. We're always going to have to be involved there. Maybe it's part of our national character, you know, we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war, and the problem goes away, and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East; it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime**

I realize that some things have changed through the years, that Saddam became even more secretive, that he threw out inspectors, etc. But the inspectors are there now -- they have Geiger counters, and other means to check for radioactive residue in the soil and in buildings – they have other ways to check for other residues. And they are beginning to get the cooperation of some of the scientists. They haven’t “disappeared” or had “suspect accidents” or been harmed in any way. What is the rush to blow Saddam out of Baghdad, possibly, blowing up more innocent lives than were lost in the World Trade Center? What right do we really have to do that without a “smoking gun” ? What will this say to North Korea and China and the other places that are also* not democratic nations?

Getting in there before the oppressive summer heat seems to be the only motivation to really speed this process up, but that is just my observation. There is nothing wrong about being prepared to fight, as we allow the inspectors to complete their job, but being prepared is MUCH different from dropping the first bomb. From the very first, all we’ve heard from the White House is that the inspections aren’t working, and this was less than two weeks into the process – when even in countries that “Voluntarily” give up weapons of mass destruction, the process has taken more than a year. All I ask from my representatives is for them to be fully present in this decision. If Saddam is painted into a corner, there is definitely going to be action in the States – terrorist or otherwise. He will have NOTHING to loose, and will become a Martyr in the process. As well, little cells that might be around in Europe or in the States that have NOTHING to do with Saddam now, may strike out of shear need to prove a point. I fear that this will not be an action that will only stay in the Middle East, but I hope I am very wrong. You may have people in your family involved in the military, some may have already been deployed, and if so, no doubt you have strong feelings of pride and worry about their presence in the Middle East. And if by chance you have no military family involved in this endeavor, and a draft was reinstated, would you feel your son or nephew was going to fight for a just cause?

**(Quoted Information courtesy of Slate’s “Chatterbox” --- article by Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 4:53 PM PT) http://slate.msn.com/id/2072609

[babylonsister]

17. No way, no how.

And the dittoheads in office didn't have a damn clue what horrors they were about to unleash. And still don't, much to my horror.:cry:

[Spazito]

18. Absolutely not and the world said so at the time

and continues to say so. It was, simply put, an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.

[Pushed To The Left]

19. The more information I hear

the more the war in Iraq looks like it was a bad idea.

[Zenlitened]

20. No.

Next question? :)

Saddam was a contained enemy. Even if it WAS time for him to go, an American president with actual leadership skills could have gotten the job done without lies, without launching an invasion, without flushing America's credibility down the toilet, without wasting so many lives.

Bush, on the other hand... he fucks up everything he touches. He has no leadership skills whatsoever. He spouts lies as easily as you or I draw a breath. He gets off on neocon daydreams no matter how preposterous. And he frankly doesn't give a shit about any deaths -- American OR Iraqi -- so long has his handlers are patting him on the head while they're lining their own pockets.

George W. Bush: Worst president ever. And a strong candidate for the biggest douchebag in American history.

[drdon326]

21. No.....but .......

I would have had nooo problem if some put a bullet into SH.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Why didn't they just do that?

We have covert special ops forces, trained assassins, and undercover agents. Somebody could have taken Saddam out easily. Sure, someone equally bad would have stepped up to take his place. But hey, isn't that what's happening now 2 years, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars later?

[drdon326]

47. Let me rephrase me answer.......

While I stated no, I do believe in a world without sticks and stones and rather nukes and chemical/biologic weapons , I think there will be times countries such as the US will have to make difficult decisions about pre-emptive war. Iraq , despite other views, did use chemical weapons at one point. This is a new era and countries, that had the luxury of security , no longer may have that option. Iraq will not be the last pre-emptive war. One wonders had a madman like Hitler been in power today with nukes, would pre-emptive war be justified??....I would say yes.

(I understand these were not present in iraq at the time.)

In addition the US cannot be the worlds policeman, but there may be times where US military action to prevent genocide ( see whats not happening in Darfur) on moral and preventitive grounds is warrented.

Sadly , even in these times of genocde , countries that talk about stopping genocide (see the flaccid EU) are a bunch of pathetic hypocrites....and dump it on the US.


My rant and i'm sticking to it.

[BurtWorm]

52. The US was all aflutter about stopping Saddam's genocide

Where are they now about stopping the genocide in Darfur? Oh, you mean the war in Iraq *wasn't* about stopping genocide? Oh... :think:

[drdon326]

53. I was talking about reasons TO go to pre-mptive war.

Shrub never sold the war on genocide, but WMDs.


Question...if a madman like Hitler arose today,with nukes, would you favor pre-emptive war?

[BurtWorm]

54. "He gassed his own people"

The Bushists put a lot of their own gas out there. Their MO was to get the media to go along with whatever justification struck their fancy. They didn't care what the American people thought, or what the world thought, or what the UN or the allies or the neighbors of Iraq thought. They put out a whole bunch of phony "reasons" for the war, including genocide, and, while reason-based people debated the merits of those arguments, went ahead and had the war anyway.

Specifically the war in Iraq was not justified. Agree?

[drdon326]

58. Agree....now answer my question.

if a madman like Hitler arose today with nukes, would pre-emptive war be justified.

I say yes.

[BurtWorm]

60. I say it depends.

And you can take the easy way out and accuse me of being an appeaser if you want, but launching a war is only one way of dealing with a madman with nukes.

One problem the US has on this question: we have nukes. Lots of them. What's to prevent a madman from taking the reins in this country. Would other countries be justified in attacking us to take over the government if they thought a madman had somehow taken control of the US?

[drdon326]

63. We apparently disagree.

Dont take this the wrong way but by the time you try other options , you might be dead.



As for your question that is possiblebut there are checks and balances that would hopefully prevent that from happening.

[BurtWorm]

65. Prevent what from happening? A madman getting into power?

Should a US president be able to send troops to any country where he or she feels the leader is a dangerous madman? Should the US Congress err on the side of taking the president's judgment of the sanity of the leader of another country?

[drdon326]

69. Boy, did you misunderstand my post.

you asked if a president decided to use nukes like a madman and i said i would hope there would be checks and balances to prevent that.

BTW....SHOULD I START A THREAD asking if pre-emptive war is ever justifiable? just wondering.

[BurtWorm]

72. Yes, maybe you should.

There probably are not enough checks and balances to prevent a madman from taking control of the US's power to launch nuclear weapons, if we agree that the weapons themselves are inherently dangerous. There is no failsafe method to prevent the weapons from being used for any reason other than a 100% justifiable one.

I will have to return to this later or tomorrow. I'm being called away for a more pressing purpose. Interesting discussion though.

[Zhade]

75. Would the USSR have been justified in attacking us under Reagan?

Thankfully, there was no chance of testing if it was justified, since we had the MAD policy - which is, of course, why North Korea and possibly Iran are seeking nukes.

[magellan]

80. It's very easy to say yes with 20/20 hindsight

The real question is: would we recognize the rise of another madman like Hitler? Most people did NOT back in the 1930s. Heck, many don't see the red flags within our own government at this very moment.

The flaw in the argument for pre-emptive strikes is that a threat can always be drummed up. If the US Government is willing to manipulate intelligence to justify invading Iraq, logic says anyone with the means and motives can do the same.

Is THAT the world you want to live in?

Saddam was bad. But relatively speaking, there were worse regimes/situations to focus on if "nuclear threat" was the measure for pre-emptive action. N. Korea. Russia's unsecured armaments. Present an objective argument to justify BushCo invading Iraq instead of addressing the threat of nuclear war/arms proliferation from those more credible sources.

I'll say right now: you can't. And the reason you can't is the same reason that makes pre-emptive war an unacceptable form of self-defense.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. the US did nothing to stop saddam's genocide.

In fact we were more or less allied with Iraq at the time that he was gassing kurds, and we stood by and watched while the Iraqi regime brutally put down the shiite rebellion we encouraged after Gulf Farce I. If Saddam is to be tried for crimes against humanity why are we not co-defenders?

[Zhade]

74. You're describing PREVENTATIVE war, not preemptive.

World of difference - mostly the utter lack of an imminent threat (or, in this case, ANY threat).

It's easy to conflate the two, the corporate media and the USG do it all the time.

[bpilgrim]

87. that is a MAJOR difference LEGALLY and we must always point that out

our behavior will only escalate the arms race as it has already.

selling WMDs to countries especially doesn't give us the right to them invade them after they used them, it is a RED-HERRING talking point, thats all.

anyways, good catch :toast:

peace

[Coexist]

71. No - not justified at all

[Zhade]

73. You're unlikely to find a single person here who would disagree.

In fact, I often stated I'd have been happy to shoot the guy myself to prevent a war.

[LuPeRcALiO]

22. It was sold on a pack of lies

which says to me that by any moral standard it wasn't.

[MojoXN]

23. In a word, no.

[saltpoint]

24. For me, Saddam is less the issue unless Mugabe is an issue.

Then people can decide whether it is uniformly necessary or ethical to instigate regime change in nations whose leaders are complete assholes.

From the perspective of many people in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, our government would fit that criterion.

Gulf of Tonkin to carpetbombing of SE Asia. Agent Orange. Lies about troop casualties. Demonization of other cultures.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction." "Yellowcake from Niger." "Atta's secret Prague rendezvous with al Queda."

Bush's pre-emptive war policy is not popular on the left and even less popular among those Iraqi family and friends of wounded or killed civilians. Even the damn religious Right is beginning to see how unethical this war is.

In fact it's not even a 'war.' It's an act of aggreesive Empire designed to put an oil pipeline from the world's 2nd largest oil producer to an ocean port(s). A whole lot of the rest of the world does NOT see it as "freedom on the march."

Historians are going to have a field day with George W. Bush.

[pretzel4gore]

25. saddam was probably less brutal then the US nazipoos

putting tens/thoussands in jail for pot...the US has the largest prison pop. in the world, per capita, and even the conservatives admit racism and classism/sexism are the motive forces for that....saddam was in an area where the politics was played very ruthlessly: it's a big lie that he was unusual in his cruelty, and the big liar (the pigmedia) thinks by repeating endlessly that 'drugs are bad, marajuwanna's bad' will eventually seep into public awareness, justifying stuff like illegal invasion of iraq...

[ewagner]

26. No

not in the least......

Civilized nations do not go around attacking other nations because they want "regime change".

Who here remembers the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 62?

Remember how that was supposed to happen?

The American trained insurgents were supposed to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Under international law, if they held for 24 hours, they could claim some sort of legal status and formally request aide from another country...in this case, the United States. Plans for air cover were messed up and the invasion force was quickly overcome and either slaughtered or captured so no request ever came.

If an Iraqi insurgency/revolutionary movement had started a civil war to depose Saddam and requested our help, I think there would have been justification. Under these circumstances....absolutely no justification.

[Disturbed]

28. It depends upon who is asked.

Bush Junta Iraq Successes

Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

A military foothold in the ME.

No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[ewagner]

34. I saved that quote....

thanks for posting that....

[jmowreader]

27. You didn't ask that here

Asking DU if the war was justified is a bit like asking the freepers if Clinton was a good president.

Saddam's brutality was not a justification for going to war against Iraq, for if we decided "brutal leader" was enough of a reason to go to war, we'd have to be at war against half the world INCLUDING quite a few of our allies. Saudi Arabia, anyone?

A brutal leader who is damaging the safety and security of his neighbors and the world at large is justification for war, which is why all the WMD lies were used.

So let me see...the US has a brutal leader who is damaging the safety and security of his neighbors and the world at large...

[manic expression]

29. NO.....it is the opposite

If we invaded countries due to human rights, we would be invading 1/3 of the world, including almost all of our non-European allies, and also including ourselves.

We "topple" Saddam at the cost of Iraq's infrastructure; basic security; the Iraqi people's access to food, water and housing; Iraq's schools; Iraq's priceless artifacts (one of the most underreported tragedies, by the way); countless TONS of weapons gone to who knows; the destabilization of the region; 100,000+ Iraqi civilians; 80,000+ Iraqi military personnel (who would have NEVER been in danger if not for America's wrong actions); 1,600+ American soldiers; many innocent journalists.

To add to all of this, we have been using widespread totalitarian measures a la Saddam. Iraqis are dragged out of their homes and thrown into detention centers for no reason whatsoever. Torture of innocent prisoners is frequent, regular even. ENTIRE CITIES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. Iraqis live in fear of the US occupation, as well as the terrorist attacks the US occupation has brought. No one is safe, especially women (ever hear of "misery gangs"?).

Bottom line: Occupied Iraq is WORSE than Baathist Iraq.

[KharmaTrain]

30. It Would Have Been Justified...

If there were other nations in the region who felt that Saddam's threat was worth them shedding their own blood to overthrow. I didn't see troop build-ups in Saudi Arabia or Turkey or any Israeli plans to launch jets and missiles at Iraq since they felt there was a serious threat to their security.

Also I draw a big differentiation between involvement in Afghanistan (later squandered) than Iraq in the fact the Northern Alliance was an already existing opposition army that had been fighting the Taliban for years. No such opposition existed against Saddam. History says people will join a resistance movement against a tyrant if if materializes. Not that Saddam wasn't a tyrant, but obviously he didn't attract the same opposition as we saw not only in Afghanistan but in Algeria and Egypt as well (but we don't want to talk about those regimes....)

If there was a strong indication...compelling evidence of an advanced weapons program, true intentions to attack our nationals (not our corporate entities) and support of other nations that see the same threat in a national security sense. Then I see can not only military action but even some form of pre-emptive strike. But this would be under extraordinary circumstances. For example I wouldn't have attacked Germany prior to Sept. 1, 1939 if I were Poland or Japan prior to Dec. 7, 1941...despite the suspicion and the motive, the other justifications weren't as clear.

Also, if there's a consortium of nations that feel a threat...such as the Europeans ones did during the Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo war where our military can bring a quicker resolution to bloodshed, I also would say a U.S. invasion/attack is justified.

Cheers!

[Warren Stupidity]

41. No it wouldn't.

Think about it. We can't have nations going to war just because they don't like the ruler of some nation. We've signed international treaties that forbid wars of aggression, which is exactly what attacking some country to depose its leader would be. This is one reason why the bush regime did not use toppling saddam as a cause for war: it isn't legal.

[KharmaTrain]

79. Again...Extraordinary Circumstances

Let's try this one on...

Kim Jong Il decides to fulfill some goofy self-induced prophecy, like his father, and decides he's going to invade South Korea. Via satallite we see a massive build up of not only conventional forces, but also missile launchers that could be tipped with nuclear weapons. In addition our Intelligence services as well as others are getting strong indications that an attack is planned and pending. Also, that Japan, Taiwan and South Korea...as well as other allies in the region and in Europe call upon us to act. Then how do you deal with this?

I'm totally against aggression, and the Iraq invasion was aggression and exploitation to the likes this world hasn't seen in 60 years. I'm also against any sort of "manifest destiny" or doctrine that calls for expansion or domination of others. However, one has to be a realist to a very dangerous world.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. "a massive buildup" in preparation for attack

is in fact an 'imminent threat' and would be just grounds for war. That is a different case. Of course you can invent situations where war is justified, and a leader may be deposed in the process.

The case you presented was quite simple: "was deposing saddam a 'just cause' for war?" I've tried to point out that this is settled international law: deposing leaders is not just grounds for war and hasn't been for something like 400 years. That is why the bush administration did not attempt to argue this as the grounds for before the invasion.

[davekriss]

31. Justified? NO!!!

And here's why (excuse me for quoting myself from pre-war 2003):

First, I see no reason to believe that Iraq represents the intensity of threat that the GWB administration has claimed; there has been zero serious evidence that the U.S. or our friends face imminent threat of any kind from Iraq. Instead, there has been a laughable series of half-truths, eliding justifications, and bald-faced lies. I therefore don't see any legal or moral justification for attacking Iraq at this time.

Second, I suggest the U.S. keep to its sound principles of Deterrence and Containment. They represent principles that have served our security interests very well since WWII. I reject the National Security Strategy’s newly announced (9/20/2002) principle of pre-emptive aggression (as well as the rest of its happy-politics-speak rewrite of the PNAC agenda).

I understand the arguments that, in the age of WMD proliferation and of ferocious terrorist will (greatly elevated with the attacks of 9-11), we may now need to rethink policy. Significant threats may no longer announce themselves as armies massing along borders, allowing time for security-maintaining (and legal) first strikes based on observed imminent threats. Some reasonable and thoughtful people today believe that the first sign of "imminent threat" might now be a rising mushroom cloud over Manhattan or Washington DC. They think, therefore, we must eliminate, not just real present threats, but the potential for such threats to emerge. Children and mothers in foreign lands might have to die based on a whim and a fear held by our President that someday – perhaps in a month, a year, or ten years – their leaders may develop the means and the will to attack the United States directly or by proxy via terrorists. Saddam Hussein, for example, might be developing nuclear weapons, and he might share them with terrorists, therefore we must amass our armies on his borders and attack to protect ourselves. I wholly reject this thinking.

Iraq has not sent its armies outside its borders since 1990; by our own CIA's reporting, they have had zero involvement with international terrorism since 1993. They have only used WMD twice, in 1988 and 1983 (while allied with U.S. interests). It's now, what? 2003? Deterrence and Containment works, my friends, and has been working very well in the case of Iraq for over a decade. Why abandon these sound principles now?

When in 1990 dear April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait (OK, a neutral light), we then hit Iraq with overwhelming force and pushed them back into their own borders. We did so quickly, legally, and morally; we were triggering the muscle of Deterrence and Containment. Iraq paid a terrible price for the foolhardy actions of their leader. Both his regime, and much of the rest of the world, learned that the U.S. has the might and the will to uphold the sanctity of sovereign borders (at least when its in our self-interest). The UN sanctions, UN inspection regimes, and no-fly zones (which are not authorized by the UN) have effectively quelled all further Iraqi aggression. Saddam Hussein has been successfully deterred from all further adventurism. Again, Deterrence and Containment worked and continues to work. Who disputes this?

Some say, "we can't continue to absorb the expense of maintaining the no-fly zones". Why not? Maintaining them is hugely less expensive than the estimated costs of war, rebuilding, and occupation, never mind the future costs that will accrue through erosion of our moral standing throughout the world.

Some say, "the sanctions are barbaric and must be stopped; we need to exact 'regime change' in order to do so". Bunk! We could've stopped the sanctions before they started. They have almost zero to do with why Saddam Hussein has not resumed his own desires for empire (which are greatly dwarfed by the ambitions of our own Caesar, thirsting for a new millennial Pax Americana). The example of Gulf War I, plus the no-fly zones and inspection regimes are what held him in check.

Some say, "Saddam is brutal, vile, represses his people -- war will free the Iraqi people and allow American-style democracy to emerge". If the lessons of history didn't stand in my way, I might believe this to be our motive and thus democracy the likely outcome. But our actions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Colombia, Chile (to name a few) lead me to believe the more likely outcome is the installation of a new repressive regime more friendly to American corporate interests.

So: Why abandon the sound principles of Deterrence and Containment now and leap to a new policy of pre-emptive attack? Where is the justification? Where is the evidence? Where is the imminent threat? Where is the moral clarity? I've been waiting for a smidgeon of these things since I first heard Condi Rice announce with feigned fervor and concern, back in March of 2002, that Iraq might be holding as a prisoner a pilot downed during the first hours of the first Gulf War. Trial balloon #1? You betcha! How can anyone trust anything these people have said since?

I recall Admiral Billingslea's testimony before Congress in the summer of 2002 overviewing the risks associated with unfriendly nations harboring terrorist groups (several of which undisputedly reside in Iraq -- though not Al Qaeda) while at the same time acquiring or building WMD. The fear is that one day an unfriendly leader will hand these weapons of violence to a terrorist group willing to use them.

First, its notable that the only weapons of mass destruction used to date have been fuel-full Boeing 757's with boxcutters serving as triggers. The leaders in unfriendly nations have so far refrained from sharing their WMD with terrorist groups for the same reason the U.S. has refused, for example, to share ours with our terrorist client states: There is nothing to gain by it and more to lose. These are our toys, the powerful think, an underpinning of our power. Why dilute matters by sharing these means with others?

What the Billingslea argument demands is vigilant anti-proliferation regimes, not implementation of the insane Bush Doctrine underway now, where Iraq is to serve as an example to the rest of the world of our willingness to use our overwhelming force to unilaterally further our self-interest (the self-interest of an elite few at the top of our socioeconomic ladder). The message: Bend to our will, or else. It’s the message of the schoolyard bully.

So, if at the nation-state level Deterrence and Containment still works, why discontinue it now? And if 9-11 examples the stealthiness of future threat, then I advise that we thoroughly examine how 9-11 came to be. I remain puzzled why the GWB administration didn't on 9/12 authorize a full and complete investigation into how our hundreds of billion dollar security apparatus failed to prevent 9-11.

When that hijacker's passport magically appeared in the WTC rubble -- or was it when I learned that we already had full active Air Force protocols to follow whenever a domestic jet is hijacked that were, for some unexplained reason, NOT followed on 9-11 -- or was it when we were promised a full "white paper" detailing the evidence of Al Qaeda involvement, evidence that has never been presented to the world -- these things lead me to conclude that this war has just about nothing to do with WMD or terrorism or the desire to bring democracy to Iraq (after all, GWB's dad promised the same thing for Kuwait!), but instead more likely is meant to advance the interests of, well, whom? Halliburton? They have, note, already been awarded huge post-war contracts, and dear Cheney still receives $1mm a year from his old firm. Who else is lined up at the trough? But mostly, the question to ask is who's megalomaniacal ego will be advanced? Who is it that desires future schoolchildren to sing songs praising their names? What arrogance! And what folly!!

(And who PAYS for war, rebuilding, and occupation? Meanwhile GWB pushes a second trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy while polishing future speeches that surely will inform us that we can no longer afford Medicare and Social Security as we know it, or occupational and environmental regulations, or money for educating our young or feeding our needy. What a F*CKING DAMN TRAVESTY! And it continues...)

OK. Rant over. You can all go back to your seats and carry on...

[pinto]

32. I never thought Hussein was the issue. He seemed a failing despot

in a country decimated by sanctions and the Gulf War, at the time we invaded. My question would be, how many lives were saved through our military intervention as compared with the probable collapse of the Hussein regime under UN sanctions? (And the sanctions were devestating, as enforced.)Tough choice. But I vote for the UN route, with more oversight for humanitarian standards. The rebuilding of a demolished country, economically and politically, would be better handled by a real coalition of nations that include Arab states.

[Inland]

33. Nobody thought that Saddam's brutality justified invasion

Nobody did. Nobody at all.

That's why Bush spent a year convincing the US that that Saddam was a DANGER TO AMERICA AND ITS ALLIES IN THE REGION.

I'll fully admit that Iraqi deaths at the hands of their own dictator doesn't bother me as much as Iraqi and US deaths due to an invasion.

What Bush statement brought a stoney, grim US congress? Why, the lie that Saddam was shopping uranium. Not some story about dead Iraqis.

And that's why Bush and his conservative haters don't react to Iraqi civilian dead. They never did care much about Iraqis or american troops, or they would never have made this war.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Absolutely not.

Not for "threat"

Not for "WMD".

Not for "he done did 911".

Not for "ties to al Qaeda".

Not for "humanitarian".

Which is exactly why the vast majority of the world, and even a tinly majority of the USA said HELL. NO.

:)

[bennywhale]

36. The specific US invasion? NO. A WAR to oust Saddam for crimes against

humanity internationally/UN led yes, which specific mentions of the Geneva convention which states it is illegal to profit from war.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. that grounds for war would have required

an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The bush administration had no legal grounds to invade Iraq. They chose the bogus WMD excuse as it was the only one available to them that allowed them to argue a legitimate cause for war: imminent threat.

[BurtWorm]

48. Some people may need to read or reread the Downing Street Minutes.

[kliljedahl]

38. That's rhetorical isn't it?

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[BurtWorm]

45. In a sense, yes it is rhetorical.

Because before 2003, it was understood that civilized nations did not go around attacking each other because they thought their leader was brutal.

On the other hand, some DUers are now criticizing the idea that Iraq would have been better off without the war, even if it meant Saddam was still in power. I'd like to hear those people answer the question.

[kliljedahl]

56. That wasn't clear in the original post

I was against it even with the original excuse. You seem to be falling for the Repuke justification in its latest metamorphosis.
I know the Iraqi's would have been better off if we hadn't invaded.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[BurtWorm]

59. You're misreading me if you think that.

My question is addressed specifically to people in this forum who earlier got all high and mighty about what dupes the rest of us are for going easy on Saddam. Oddly enough, one loudmouth in particular has scarpered. I presume he won't be condescending to share his moral purity with us on this question.

[Protagoras]

42. No...HELL NO

And for the thousands of reasons that have been spelled out in utter detail here every day from 2002 during the buildup...till today.

[sintax]

44. It's not a War

It's an invasion by colonizers seeking to grab resources, kill a culture, destroy the infrastructure, murder children etc. Following in the footsteps of Lord Curzon and Western man in Mesopotamia. To call it a "WAR" is to misrepresent the genocidal occupation. Anyone who supports this is partly responsible. Every Senator who votes for additional funding should be held criminally liable.

It is murder.



"The occupiers should leave immediately," he explains while sipping tea, "They only came with their own interests and we can manage Iraq for ourselves. We do not need them for any reason."

[bpilgrim]

46. I'm with the U.N. - ILLEGAL (btw: PREVENTIVE WAR is always ILLEGAL) n/t

peace

[understandinglife]

50. Not justified. Totally illegal, as is the occupation.

Peace.

We have all the evidence of mendacity and illegal war-making we need to indict and prosecute Bush, Blair and every other neoconster scum-bag on the planet having any involvement in the Bush's illegal war on Iraq and all the torture and other atrocities that have been committed since August 2002.

Emad Hajjaj, Al-Ghad Newspaper, Amman, Jordan

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq, and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[CHIMO]

51. Bush Thinks So

Others don't.

Kind of hard to answer without a reference for what is justice.

[0rganism]

55. By which standards?

Morally and legally, this invasion and occupation is completely bankrupt.

Even from the utilitarian viewpoint of reducing terrorism worldwide, it has been a bust from conception.

However, if one required the ability to assert direct control over a large share of the world's remaining oil reserves, the war was justified by necessity.

[BurtWorm]

57. You got it.

Right on the nose.

[Zhade]

61. Gee, the war apologist freepers-in-disguise didn't show up.

Color me shocked.

[BurtWorm]

62. I did notice that.

Maybe they're watching the Tonys? :shrug:

[Zhade]

66. No, they're busy starting flamebait threads about "genocide apologists"...

...based on the lie that another poster said something they most emphatically did not.

You should go check it out, it's amazing to watch the freeper ignoring evidence and lying about other posters. Bring some popcorn for the spank-fest!

[BurtWorm]

68. I saw.

That's why I asked the question. I wanted to see what these holy men thought of justification of the war. It's tragic, but I don't think we'll be hearing from the one whose answer I was most interested in.

[Zhade]

70. They'd never go over there to fight the war they so obviously support.

Why? Because they're chickenshit coward hypocrites.

Man, the quality of DU has gone downhill. I found an email in a rarely-checked Yahoo account the other day, claiming that there are mods who are actually freepers.

The quality of DU and its modding makes me wonder sometimes.

[quinnox]

64. No

Saddam was an evil guy but America shouldn't start wars of aggression.

[Individualist]

67. No!

[kittenpants]

78. pffft! NO

[UdoKier]

81. No. Not even if Saddam had WMD

If merely having WMD of having invaded one's neighbors was a crime, the US is guilty many, many times over.

[not systems]

82. No. 300 billion dollars down a rat hole and 100000+ human lives...

destroyed.

Not worth it.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Show me satellite photos of Kurds being marched into death camps in 2002

And I would tell you that military action and possibly regime change was justified. Saddam's brutality happened in the early nineties when Poppy was President and he did jack shit to stop it.

[WillyT]

84. No... Absolutely Not !!!

Gulf of Tonkin crap... all over again.

Took 58,000 lives and millions of dead and wounded to finally figure that one out.

:nuke:

[jpgray]

86. If Saddam were unique in his thuggishness, maybe there'd have been a case

But he just wasn't. He wasn't unique as a WMD threat, and he wasn't unique as a tyrannical dictator, though he was quite nasty by any measure. He was unique in that he was sitting on a lot of oil, was a person complacent Americans already associated with "evil," and was in a region where we want to project power and influence.

[ngGale]

88. No, it wasn't justified...

most of the killing occurred during the 80's with Bush I at the helm.
Bush and Rummy even gave Saddam a metal. I read at one point they had no evidence against Saddam, none they could prove. Our pre-emptive strike reversed the law, dictator or not - he was in power.
He complied with everything we asked for. I'm sure if he is convicted on 12 charges, that would be good under the circumstances.
Bush I also left Saddam in power, exactly because of what is happening now. Destablization of the Mid East and civil war. * should have listened to his daddy on this one.

[lonestarnot]

90. HELL Fucking NO

We did nothing in Rawanda when the Tutsies and the Hutus were going at it. The Hutus hacked thousand of people to death in a real act of genocide which we clearly knew was going to take place.

[tavalon]

93. Which justification would you like to discuss?

There have been many.

In short, no, we should not have gone into Iraq, no way, no how.

[B Calm]

96. We are fighting the terrorists over there and not here!

How do you argue with right wingers who spit out this propaganda?

[BurtWorm]

101. What are the color codes about?

Why the terror warnings if the Bushists really believe we're fighting terrorists "over there?"

[oblivious]

97. The only justification for destroying Iraq was stealing their oil.

All the other bullshit was for fools. And lots of fools are still pretending that BS is worth arguing about.

It was supposed to be over in 30 days, the oil in the secure hands of US lackeys. If that had happened, 70% of Brits and Americans would have thought it was a damn good idea.

[Tesla]

98. NO WAY!!!!!

It was a LIE!!!!

[Disturbed]

102. A madman getting into power?

We have several in power right here in Amerika.

[whosinpower]

104. We shouldn't forget

That Saddam offered to step down to avert war.....and Bushco refused to meet with his delegate.

[leesa]

105. Are you serious? There's no question it is immoral AND illegal

[Telly Savalas]

106. Damn straight it was justified!

If our noble leader hadn't decided to protect our nation, y'all would have Iraqi tanks parked in your front yard.

[ms. contrary]

109. this question is an implicit distortion of the debate on Saddam

In the recent threads on Saddam, as I recall, the "anti-Saddam" camp never said they thought the current war was justified. In fact, they took great pains to specify that they thought the war was wrong.

[oblivious]

111. Their justification and promotion of the propaganda justifies the war.

The WMD justification didn't work so now they focus on others ... "genocide", "mass graves", ... "terrorism" ... "lack of democracy", "coulda", "wouda", ... blah, blah.

Clutching at straws, they are. They don't have the guts to come out and say it: Invading armies have killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocents for treasure.

[BurtWorm]

113. I didn't see any great pains taken to do anything but imply DUers

were apologists for genocide. One thing DUers are not and never have been are suckers for Bush administration lies, so it's more than understandable to me if a lot of people here challenge the Bushist definition of the terms as well as its alleged "facts."

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on DU apologize for Saddam Hussein. I've seen DUers challenge Bushist claims about Saddam's alleged war crimes, not in the spirit of my enemy's enemy is my friend but in the spirit of taking what a war criminal says about another war criminal with a grain of salt.

What I've seen a lot of on DU was a nuanced approach to the subject, and a firm resistance to becoming the moral simpletons one finds all over the right.

[ms. contrary]

115. unfortunately that's not what I saw

[bpilgrim]

120. stick around... cause that's what I saw

and that's what makes DU so popular with news junkies and lefty thinkers.

:hi:

peace

[Inland]

116. Doesn't distort anything. It merely asks the more important question.

The "debate on Saddam", of whether he killed 1500 or 15,000 or 150,000, is really only of interest to the extent it justifies an invasion.

So Burtworm asked the important question of what was justified no matter what Saddam was.

It might not be the question you are interested in, and it certainly isn't the question the Bushites ask. But whether Saddam was an evil despot is somewhat besides the point.

[BurtWorm]

118. Of course whether he is responsible for those deaths is also of interest

to history. If the charges are true that he systematically murdered thousands of Kurds, he ought to pay in some way.

I don't think a tribunal arranged by the US is a legitimate forum for a trial of Saddam, considering that the US may have known about the Ba'athist atrocities while they were going and and chose to look the other way (or possibly enabled them by providing the materials used in the executions). More to the point, the US's invasion of Iraq was illegitimate, as far as the international community is concerned, so its authority in Iraq is illegitimate.

[Inland]

122. Yes, it's of interest to history

I keep coming back to the fact of the extent of Saddam's evil didn't matter to Americans much until it became clear that the war wasn't in the US national interest. Then it had to be made to be in the Iraqi's national interest---which has ended up being such a close call, amazingly enough, thanks to US incompetence and thereby requring war backers to exaggerate the crimes of Saddam to anyone who felt that Iraqi national interest was sufficient causus belli.

[BurtWorm]

123. And the Bushists have politicized everything they've ever touched

to such an extent that even though Saddam may absolutely have been the worst kind of Caligulan tyrant, this will be obscured by the Bushist's territorial ownership of "The Fall of Saddam." It's another instance of their turning everything they touch to shit.

[bpilgrim]

119. funny, i thought just the opposite... that we even have this debate on DU

after all known-unKnowns have come out, the question, here anyways, is merely academic if not rhetorical. but some INSIST on dredging up all the RW BS in iraq to ATTACK Lefty's on a lefty site which, imho, is NUTS. yet, be that as it may, here we are...

BTW: welcome back :hi:

peace