Question on the War in Iraq

by dins 8 Replies latest social current

• 

  dins

  Hi all,

  After reading the face of war post on how the US in covering up the atrocities, it has finally compelled me to ask this question which has been on my mind for weeks.

  I am glad to see Saddam gone and think in the end it will have been the right thing to do. But when Bush told Saddam to disarm "or else" what if Saddam had really disarmed? Would we still have gone in there? If he had disarmed and we didn't go in, the human atrocities would still be ongoing. It appears to me that somewhere along the way someone has switched gears and has turned this into a humanitarian issue rather than the primary issue that was the ultimatum.

  Any thoughts on this? I've asked some of my coworkers what they think and just got that blank start and shoulder shrug that can only come from living such insular lives.

  Thanks, Diana
• 

  freeman

  Although regime change was the stated goal of the former Clinton administration and adopted by the Bush administration, the pursuit of military action towards that end in Iraq could easily have been avoided.

  If Saddam decided to disarm as he promised there would never have been any sanctions imposed, the oil would be flowing without restrictions, and he would likely still be in power even now. But that was not Saddam’s choice.

  The events of 9-11 is what changed everything. The events of 9-11 are what will drive the next action if it becomes necessary. But hopefully it will not come to that. Hopefully states that sponsor terror or are reckless with their existing WMD and would place them in the hands of crazies will take note of the example that just happened in their backyard.

  Despite the noble notion of going to war with Iraq for the liberation of the Iraqi people, that was a secondary reason. The United States primary reason, the reason that got Bush to take this drastic action, was to prevent WMD from getting into the hands of crazies that would use them on the United States and its allies.

  That said, Saddam miscalculated once again when he did not take Bush at his word, as he should have. Is there a lesson in all of this? Sure, and it’s quite simple. When Bush told the Telaban to hand over Bin Ladden or they would be removed from power as a consequence, he meant it.

  A lot of people don’t like that matter-of-fact way of expression, particularly when coming from a politician and world leader. Perhaps they’re not used to that or they don’t trust that simple unsophisticated way of doing things. Then again, some really like it. I’m not saying whether that’s good or bad, it just how he (Bush)is. Just some thoughts...

  Freeman
• 

  ThiChi

  Many quests in war have turned into a greater benefit or have taken on more than what was originally stated.

  The Civil War was to preserve the Union, then the issue of slavery took hold. WWII was not about freeing the Jews under Hitler, however the Human Rights issue took on a greater cause.

  Remember, this effort is also an effort to confront Global Terrorism........

  If "Ifs and butts were beer and nuts, we would have a party."

  Who knows? Saddam has been quoted in the past to have said "Life without power is nothing.." He had 12 years to disarm and did not. His actions were very telling......
• 

  Elsewhere

  Saddam was a dictator... dictators stay in power by use of fear and terror. WMD are a dictator's dream.

  If Saddam were to disarm, he would have lost/given up power - something no dictator will ever to do.

  Bush gave Saddam a loaded requirement, to disarm... something no dictator would ever do. Quite ingenious if you as me. Its like a cop ordering someone to stop breathing, and then arresting him for disobeying an order.

  As we all can see, it worked. Saddam is no longer a threat.
• 

  Adam

  Regime change and keeping someone like Saddam from having WMD were always, and still are, the primary goals and reasons for beginning the war. But killing the thousands of enemy soldiers nessecary to realize the regime change leavs a distinctly less pleasant flavor in the mouth of the media-consuming public than the side benefit of regime change, which is liberation. Thus liberation is what is going to be focused upon. Both regime change and liberation are good things, but liberation plays much better.

  As to the "or else" ultimatum, that was simply a gesture. Everyone knew that Saddam was not going to cooperate fully with 1441 and provide all neccessary documentation to the UN on his own as was demanded of him by the world. Everyone also knew that he was not going to give up power within the 48 hrs demanded by Bush. But, as civilized people, we must be able to say that we did give him the chance.
• 

  Francois

  If he had really disarmed, how would we have known?

  After 12 years of his lying and bullshit, he guaranteed the invasion of his country; the little boy who cried wolf. 'Member him?

  francois
• 

  Simon

  My personal opinion is that they wanted this war and it became pretty clear that whatever the Iraqi government did, it was nevrr going to be "enough".

  Even in the final day when they did the last "you have 48 hours to leave" they openly admitted that they would not accept Saddam leaving.
• 

  Erich

  The question now is:
  
  Can the US stop the chaos and anarchy in Iraq now, or not?
  
  If not, if looting and murdering is going on and on in Iraq, and if the people starve to death through hunger and thirst, I think is on the time that some of the "unwilling" war-coalition are going to send their troops to Iraq to reestablish law and order. Not 100 000 troops, but 1 million... They should take the oil- fields for compensation of their expenses, until the Iraq is clean of murder!

  E.
• 

  Realist

  erich,

  don't you think its time to drop the apocalyptic scenarios?!