Was attacking Iraq the right decision

[bjf]

Please answer based on whether or not the initial attack was appropriate. If you would have attacked, but done

other things differently, please answer "yes."

[Pancho1188]

I think Saddam was a toolbag,

but I'm not sure if what we did was the way to go about it. Despite what Amnesty International would tell you, I'm

not sure if it's any of our business to butt in on other countries' activities. I believe that that's what caused

the attacks in the first place, and we responded by attacking other countries. I find it ironic, actually.

Bush

and others simply hated the government and Saddam since Bush Sr.'s day and wanted them out of the way. They had an

excuse---I mean opportunity, and they took it.

I think it's none of our business until we actually have a

threat from a country. Having WMDs is not a threat. Hell, we have WMDs and you don't see anyone freaking out about

it. Thinking about the possibility of constructing/buying WMDs in the future for the purpose of maybe using them

against their enemies in the future is not a threat. To be a threat, you have to have a motive, and to attack the

strongest country in the world, you have to be suicidal. A few people who somehow connected to a terrorist

organization were suicidal and have a motive, but Saddam was not dumb enough to actually pose a threat to the United

States.

I don't know how that answers the question. The regime was bad, so getting rid of it was good. None of

our business, so sticking our nose in was bad.

I guess that makes me a "no" because not liking a country

doesn't give you the right to attack it.

I think I could sum up the decision in three words:

It's hard

work! :thumbsup:

[DrSmellThis]

There also might be folks who

believe the timing of the attack may have been off, but that the attack may have eventually had to happen, with more

international support, or after more inspections. That brings up the issue of hindsight. Some might say they would

have done X, but in hindsight would do Y, given no WMD/Al Qaeda connection. So concluding anything from this poll is

a bit tricky.

Plus, aren't you just putting our right to defend our country to an "international test"?

;) Are you John Kerry in disguise?

[Friendly1]

At the time, everyone believed

he had weapons of mass destruction. Not everyone believed he was in league with Al Qaida. But it was well

documented that he was paying thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers who were inflicting dozens of

civilian casualties on the Israeli people on a weekly basis.

The War on Terror is not the War on Al Qaida. Bush

seems to have failed most in convincing people that Al Qaida are not the only terrorists in the world who threaten

the United States and its allies.

[belgareth]

By everyone, who do you mean? I

seem to recall quite a few people were denying Iraq had WMD's.

[DrSmellThis]

The primary war has to be

against who attacked us. Secondly, against terrorists who threaten us less directly or indirectly. It's not as if

"a war is a war is a war". Supporting some familes of dead suicide bombers is cause for concern and diplomatic

action, but not sufficient for invasion and occupation of a soverign country. Over the years, we've supported

terrorists here in lots of indirect ways, too.

Lots of folks suspected he might have WMD, hence the

inspections, but the only "concrete" intelligence was the faulty stuff from England which we hadn't

questioned. The CIA stuff was half data based and half expectation based. Powell went to the UN to try to convince

the world he had them. He wouldn't have gone had it not been necessary. Russia thought he probably had them, as

Bush is fond of reminding us, but thought the evidence insufficient to just attack without finishing inspections.

Weapons inspectors were always consistent that they had no evidence of them "yet".

[a.k.a.]

In hindsight, I am truly shocked and

amazed at how horribly, and in how many ways, this operation’s been botched up. But I never, for one minute,

believed the lies Bush & co. were pushing on us. And I still wonder if anyone was paying attention while the wool

was being pulled over our eyes.

Here’s my post from before the invasion got underway:

"Evidence? Are

you kidding? Did you actually watch Powell’s presentation, with that thing that kept popping up “Iraq: Failure to

Disarm... Denial and Deception”, and that menacing little vial of “anthrax” being waved around. (How cheesy.) And

all that talk about sources: defectors, detainees (you know, those guys being tortured in Guantanamo. Very reliable.

Right.). Spiffy drawings. Grainy satellite photos (anybody remember how Bush I got the Saudis to think Saddam was

amassing troops to attack Arabia with doctored satellite photos?)

It was all media spectacle. Just like

Aschroft’s “Orange Alert”. Al-Qaida is supposedly planning an attack on America (“Confirmed by multiple sources”.

Right) to coincide with an annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Talk about stirring up racist paranoia.

This is

just like the Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s “1984”. Nobody’s trying to present evidence that is going to

appeal to anybody’s reason. It’s psych-ops. It’s trying to displace all the frustrations and uncertainties of living

in Fortress America onto the latest Satan figure. (Where IS Osama by the way?)

But let’s be realistic. Let’s

say you were the unscrupulous leader of a war ravaged country, suffering 11 years of inhuman sanctions. And lets say

the most powerful Empire in the history of the world, with a 40 year record of military interventions, was amassing

its forces in preparation to invade your country and steal your oil reserves — the only wealth you had left. What

would you do? Disarm?

So let’s pretend, amidst all that media spin, the Bush regime did manage to get it’s

hands on a few scraps of evidence. Clause 10 of Security Council Resolution 1441 , "Requests all Member States to

give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information

related to prohibited programmes."

So if the US really did have evidence, by waiting until the inspectors

left to bring it forth, it failed to comply with Resolution 1441. Does that give anybody the right to bomb

Washington? (I hope not.)"

http://pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5556

[Pancho1188]

Does that give

anybody the right to bomb Washington? (I hope not.)"

Please don't hurt me!!! :(

The following is a

joke based on the reason why people believed Iraq had WMDs:

People believed Iraq had WMDs because the US gave

them WMDs to fight Iran over a decade ago. Isn't that a little like those movies where a guy looks like he's

trying to be friends with another guy, slips stolen merchandise into his coat, and alarms the police of the other

guy's theft? :rofl:

-Hey, buddy. Have these weapons. We want you to help us fight our enemies.
--Okay,

sir!
*Years later*
-They have WMDs! Attack!
--Wait, you gave these to us!!! Even then, we used them all or

threw them away!
-We don't believe you! Attack!!!



Even with WMDs, there was no indication of an

Iraqi threat to the US. The key was to somehow perceive Iraq as a threat that somehow connects to terrorism and

supplying weapons to US enemies. I just don't think the reasons we attacked were valid. I didn't think they were

then, and I was hoping that they'd prove me wrong by pulling a Sherlock Holmes and laying out all of the pieces of

the Iraqi connection to the 'axis of evil'. It never happened.

I agree with Bush when he says that Iraq is

now rid of a terrible regime, but that wasn't a strong enough sell to invade a country...apparently, the UN agreed.

So, they played the WMD-card.


I think it's the hardest thing in the world to agree that the (real)

intentions were right but the reasons and justification were wrong. I agree that the regime was bad, but that's no

reason to attack a country.