What has the Iraq War wrought?

In end after all the nice sounding words you have a pre-emptive war and depending on where one stands on that issue tell whether the Iraq war was justified.

There was more danger in other parts of the world with just as much of a possible connection to terrorist at the time we went to war.

There are more places in world where people are oppressed and abused from their leaders.

There was nothing to make Iraq stand out at the time we invaded it. There was no imminent threat.

Lastly it is not yet over there is still just as death and chaos going now as when we first captured Saddam Hussein.

Oh, that's false. Let me clarify what distinguised Iraq. Those of us who support the invasion think that what distinguished Iraq was our desire to intervene at the point in time where an evil dictator had some WMD, and had some development programs, but hadn't progressed far enough to render himself essentially invulnerable, as North Korea now has. We felt that as we allowed time to pass without resolving the issue, Iraq might either:

1. Announce, as North Korea now has, that it had made enough WMD progress that it could now demand that all interference stop, and that it would henceforth continue its WMD development openly, or
2. Sneak a WMD into the US or ally, set it off, and then deny responsibility.

The fact is that when we invaded, based on what was known then, there was some probability that Iraq was either continuing its former development in secret, or else keeping the weapons and or programs in stasis until the spotlight was off and they could be resumed. Hussein had promised to disarm in such a way that there was clear proof, and after 12 years of playing with him, it hadn't happened.

The Iraq adventure is a disaster. The country has been allowed to slide into a state of anarchy. There is an unwinnable guerilla war on going which will continue until USUK troops leave. The Iraqi army has been brought back to take on the fight with the insurgents. The place is ungovernable, the three tribes voted not for policies but just for their own people. All the conditions are right for the army to take over power and a military dictatorship to emerge.

Its cost billions of dollars
Its wasted thousands of lives
Its not secured oil
Its not brought peace and security to Iraq
Its not brought freedom

War uh huh What is it good for?

Brandon, there has just been too much information that has come out which points to what Bush knew when he went war verses what he was saying.

They knew there wasn't a big stockpile of WMD, in fact a few months before all the talk of going to war they were talking about how there wasn't a big stockpile of WMD. They just decided to "settle on the WMD" issue in order to sway the American people who was not behind going to war.

Damn.......all the honest soul searching and common sense that I have observed on this unique, fascinating thread have just gone up in smoke..........You and Blatham make a great doom and gloom team. You can however be very proud of your self and all your myopic, pacifist buddies, for destroying Blair. He is a good and decent man and our best ally. If my interpretation of the news is correct, Labor's greatly reduced majority will force Blair to step down. Well done Steve.
You've accomplished what Andrew Gilligan and the leadership of the BBC counldn't. Leaking that secret memo just a week before election, was a low and mean trick. You've learned a great deal from our Democrats........lies, dirty tricks, and distortions sometimes win.

You ask.....what is war good for? If it wasn't for your brave fighter pilots and army with a few Yanks mixed in.......you'd be wearing swastikas and clicking your heels with that psycho who hopefully shot himself in the Bunker in Berlin. You also wouldn't be allowed to operate a computer without gov't permission. Come to think of it though, that would be a great benefit to us........we wouldn't be forced to read your sorry @#$%& thought process.

" If it wasn't for your brave fighter pilots and army with a few Yanks mixed in.......you'd be wearing swastikas and clicking your heels with that psycho who hopefully shot himself in the Bunker in Berlin."



Excellent post Rayban thanks.

You say "hopefully shot himself"...is there some doubt? Did he escape first to S America and then Texas perhaps?

gotta go now have some black leather to polish for inspection..

.............................................

When I say the war in Iraq is unwinnable, I'm just stating an opinion. I dont see how it is retrievable. It gives me no pleasure at all that every day 20 50 5 15 people are blown to pieces, if that's what you're thinking. The fact that Blatham and I occasionally shed some light on a particularly dark and depressing situation might become clearer to you if you took off the sunglasses. My father was an RAF officer. Once as a petulant teenager I called him a fascist, he reminded me of that fact. I didn't try that trick again.

As for Blair, I'm a member of the Labour party and a long time supporter of Tony Blair. But just because I support the man does not mean he can do no wrong, and misleading the country over the real reasons for invading Iraq, that is going to war on a false prospectus, was a big wrong.

However, the election results last night have been quite satisfactory all round. The conservatives have done just well enough to lull them into a false sense of security, i.e. it will stave off the reforms they need to go through if they ever hope to form a govt. and will keep them in opposition. The LibDems took a principled stance over the war and were rewarded under our system with a small pat on the back. Meanwhile Labour form the next govt. with a perfectly workable majority of about 70 seats, Blair will have an historic 3rd Labour term of office, yet the electorate has given him a sharp slap on the wrist over Iraq. Thats done, we can move on...and hopefully out of that benighted country.

As I said, inspection parade soon...

Iraq is going thru the contortions of change. The strife we witness there stems from differences between those Iraqis who continue to want to live in the past and those who seek personal freedom, economic improvement of their lives, and obtain political self determination. The conflict is not between the U.S. military and Iraqis. The U.S. presence is only tolerated by Iraqis because they are needed for security reasons but as the situation improves both the U.S. and Iraqi government will work towards the downsizing of American forces.

I see the glass half full. We have just seen a national election that, despite a boycott from many Sunnis enforced by a select few with firearms, has installed a legitimate Iraqi government. We have seen both the Kurds and Shia show respect towards the Sunni by installing some Sunnis into high government posts. We continually see Iraqis apply for, train, and work towards a professional army and police force. There is no doubt what most Iraqis want: personal, economic and political freedom. What they don't want is the pre 19 March 2003 Iraq.

The "insurgents" main goal is disruption. Their overarching strategy is to create a civil war. This attempt can be seen in the tactics: most bombings kill Iraqis and not U.S. soldiers. Recently we have seen bombing incidents in the Kurdish controlled areas also. If the bad guys can set the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia at each others throats they have set up a situation that can easily deteriorate and lead to another strong man type government (This is not unique to the Middle East-- think how the French Revolution spawned the likes of Napoleon Bonaparte.)

The Shia know this and, thanks to the wisdom of Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani, have shown remarkable restraint in their response to those attacks by the insurgents whose sole purpose is to be divisive. They know that if they fall into this trap they would then lose all they have gained.

Lastly, this, like the building of all nations, is a work in progress and we cannot expect Baghdad to be built in a day. Neither should we expect an American type government to take form given any length of time. For certain reasons I have serious doubts that Iraqis can come to an agreement that would eventually coalesce into a written codified constitution but even Great Britain does not have a written constitution analogous to that of the U.S. (it is written but is distributed between various documents-- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_constitution ). I see something like a loose federation of republics, but, we shall see.

JM

What was going on in Iraq was not really known. Some things were known, but much was not. There were various possibilities, any of which might have been true. What was known, however, is that Hussein had wanted these weapons badly, and had spent many years playing a game of cat and mouse with the inspectors. Those facts alone, plus knowing the terrible devastation that even one WMD could cause in a western city, were more than enough reason to invade and finally resolve the issue beyond question. I don't really care what Bush said, because I can see the obvious by myself. I wanted an invasion of Iraq long before Bush showed up. A 25% chance of an evil madman with doomsday weapons is unacceptable, and, unlike North Korea is now, Iraq was at a point where we still had the military option.