War In Iraq (old news I know but not forgotten)

[SamStranger]

War In : Iraq

[Conservative1]

I'm kind of undecided...I mean it is apualling how the U.S. had either incredibly inept or downright falsified surveilance, depicting Iraq's posession WMAs! (I know highly overused term...lol)

On the other hand Iraq not allowing in inspectors until the war machine was essentially already knocking down their door, wasn't acceptable either! And the response of the free world to this incredible indescretion was to do nothing!! Ultimately I feel Iraq will be better off with Saddam removed, and democracy in place (if that will actually ever happen is a topic for another thread...lol).

I guess ultimately the only thing i have a problem with is the falsified or inept intelligence...if they could do it to them who couldn't they do it to?

[apollo19]

I think it was the right thing to do even though there were no WMD's found. One thing I don't agree with though is the duration it has taken -- there should have been plans to keep Iraq's original Republican Guard intact, and make them swear loyalty to whoever would win the election (which should have been held sooner). That would have eliminated a lot of the training time, and the foreign troops could have left already. The longer things go on, the more chance there is for bad things -- like the suicide bombings, the beheadings, and the soldier abuse stories.

[cybercoma]

Conservative1 has a good point. Right up until the United States was standing on their doorstep, Saddam Hussein refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. To give any sort of validity to the UN, the US had its hands tied. Of course, going against the UN and doing it anyway also made the UN look stupid but served as a warning well enough that if you don't co-operate with the UN, the United States will "deal" with you.

[Black Dog]

Conservative1 has a good point. Right up until the United States was standing on their doorstep, Saddam Hussein refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. To give any sort of validity to the UN, the US had its hands tied. Of course, going against the UN and doing it anyway also made the UN look stupid but served as a warning well enough that if you don't co-operate with the UN, the United States will "deal" with you.

Right, just like they "deal" with frequent resolution-violater Israel.

When people say the UN is irrelevant, they are right, even though the people who usually say such things are wrong about why that is.

[sage]

It was a worthwhile idea at the time, though obviously not enough thought was put into what happened after the war was going to be over.

Considering that they destabilized the entire region, though I think we'll have to wait and see whether the Iraqi can actually respond to a nation state on its own, or whether they will continue in their own respective group struggles.

If they can control their borders and themselves, perhaps it will work out, but I'm a little pessimistic in that regard.

[tml12]

It was a worthwhile idea at the time, though obviously not enough thought was put into what happened after the war was going to be over.

Considering that they destabilized the entire region, though I think we'll have to wait and see whether the Iraqi can actually respond to a nation state on its own, or whether they will continue in their own respective group struggles.

If they can control their borders and themselves, perhaps it will work out, but I'm a little pessimistic in that regard.

Well put Sage.

[Conservative1]

Considering that they destabilized the entire region...

Destabalized?.....seemed pretty unstable to me already

[cybercoma]

Conservative1 has a good point. Right up until the United States was standing on their doorstep, Saddam Hussein refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. To give any sort of validity to the UN, the US had its hands tied. Of course, going against the UN and doing it anyway also made the UN look stupid but served as a warning well enough that if you don't co-operate with the UN, the United States will "deal" with you.

Right, just like they "deal" with frequent resolution-violater Israel.

When people say the UN is irrelevant, they are right, even though the people who usually say such things are wrong about why that is.

Israel, who is breaking resolutions as determined by the 20 other Arab states who want them "pushed into the sea".

Right.

[cybercoma]

It was a worthwhile idea at the time, though obviously not enough thought was put into what happened after the war was going to be over.

Considering that they destabilized the entire region, though I think we'll have to wait and see whether the Iraqi can actually respond to a nation state on its own, or whether they will continue in their own respective group struggles.

If they can control their borders and themselves, perhaps it will work out, but I'm a little pessimistic in that regard.

It's pretty unstable to be able to elect your leaders.

Perhaps someone should take over Canada for over 2 decades.

[Black Dog]

Israel, who is breaking resolutions as determined by the 20 other Arab states who want them "pushed into the sea".

Right.

A resolution broken is a resolution broken, rgardless of who dreamed it up or their ulterior motives. It's kind of hypocritical to give the UN legitimacy in order to justify actions you support, but dismiss it when it come to causes you oppose (which is pretty much what the U.S government does already, I suppose.)

It's pretty unstable to be able to elect your leaders.

Elections aren't necessarily an indicator of stability. See: Palestine, Hamas.