If anyone can find a PBS Frontline special called "Losing Iraq" watch it.  The mistakes were critical and made right at the beginning.  A clusterfuck from the word "go."

(December 29, 2015 at 7:24 pm)TrueChristian Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 5:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

I suppose I wonder what if any adverse consequenes would there be if he and his regime were still around? Would he be a threat or would he help keep Iran in check like he did in the 80s?

I don't much care if Hussein had nerve agents hidden inside every cat in his country - possession of a weapon does not merit a pre-emptive war. The United States currently has around 5000 (I think) nuclear warheads and has used them in war. Does this merit other nations attacking the US, on the chance that the US might - someday - use them again?

Boru

Can't say. I do know that GB2 and the US had no business instigating that war.

(December 29, 2015 at 7:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The United States currently has around 5000 (I think) nuclear warheads and has used them in war.  Does this merit other nations attacking the US, on the chance that the US might - someday - use them again?

Yes. America may be the nation most deserving of attack of any kind, since it is clearly the most bellicose nation in the world.

America has killed so many thousands of innocent civilians at this point that really there's no moral reason for the nation's continued existence. It is because of power, both economic and military, that America continues, not because of any merit the nation may have earned in WWII (70 years ago, remember).

We had no business invading Iraq ... so to speak, of course.

(December 29, 2015 at 7:42 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 7:24 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

Wide suspicion as in USA and several puny bootlickers. I'm European and I'm old enough to remember the prelude pretty clearly. How the German foreign minister publicly told Rumsfeld off for not having made the case. How French politicians reacted to Bush's plans. Basically the whole of Europe, except some Eastern European countries and Aznar's Spain presented the findings of their own secret services to counter Bush's allegations. They trusted in what the UN commission, led by Mohammed el-Baradei presented, after investigating Iraq. An investigation, cut short by Bush's cronies, by basically ordering them out, since they wanted to finally start their war. Even Collin Powell was and still is outraged over what he had to present to the UN. False documents, based on one single source. A source, the German BND warned to be a phony, since they already investigated him.

Here's Joschka Fischer, then German foreign minster, adressing Rumsfeld at a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_QbpFl7RM

Finally, the feudal attitude of the former Bush administration manifested itself in the transcript of a press conference, Bush, Aznar and Blair gave, right before giving their marching orders. In the transcript, everything said by Aznar was labelled to have been said by "josè". Same with Blair, who was adressed as "Tony". Only Bush was adressed as "The president of the United States". That in itself speak volumes about the coalition of the willing and their role.

And by the way, Bush and cronies took an extended piss on the grave of Justice Jackson, chief persecutor at the Nuremberg tribunals. In his opening statement, Jackson seeked to criminalize all forms of aggressive war. The full statement can be read here.

https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-an...-tribunal/

I am from the U.S. and old enough to remember, and that's pretty much how I remember it.  I did and do, however, pay at least some attention to foreign news sources.

(December 29, 2015 at 5:47 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I honestly don't think there'd be such a thing called ISIS if Saddam was still in power, but hey, what do I know.

Absolutely correct. And it's not as if this hadn't been predicted by many experts around the world before Shrub started his little adventure. Removing the lid from the kettle is never a good idea. But the idiots surrounding the president obviously didn't have any clue of what would happen.

Our adventurism in Iraq long predates either George Bush. We've been involved since the late 70s and every Democrat has gleefully taken part. Bill Clinton's sanctions killed how many? I recall his secretary of state Madeleine Albright said killing 500,000 children in Iraq was worth it to try to get Saddam out of power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o

(December 29, 2015 at 8:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 7:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The United States currently has around 5000 (I think) nuclear warheads and has used them in war.  Does this merit other nations attacking the US, on the chance that the US might - someday - use them again?

Yes.  America may be the nation most deserving of attack of any kind, since it is clearly the most bellicose nation in the world.

America has killed so many thousands of innocent civilians at this point that really there's no moral reason for the nation's continued existence.  It is because of power, both economic and military, that America continues, not because of any merit the nation may have earned in WWII (70 years ago, remember).

I can't deny America has done many terrible things and killed more than a few people.

However, since I live here, I do have a stake in my country's continued existence.

Whether we deserve to exist or not... it's worth asking if Saddam posed a threat of some kind to us.

I might argue yes, strange as it sounds. This is a new opinion I have and a year ago I would have scoffed at identifying with the neo cons.

But what is one to make of a man like Saddam who even among so called "terrible dictators" was a special kind of sicko?

He was the first man to commit a chemical genocide since Hitler (Al-Anfal campaign).

I know he was not an ally of Al-Qaeda, however he was tolerant if not sympathetic to Islamic extremism. He may have helped inculcate it in his own country ( look at how many of his former officers are with ISIS) and he had Zarqawi in his country for over a year before we invaded.

To this day, Zarqawi's presence in Secular, Baathist Iraq has not made sense to me. How could Zarqawi have entered Baghdad with Saddam's knowledge? Given that  Baathist Iraq was sort of an Arab North Korea ( one nearly as difficult to enter as it was to leave)  I find it hard to believe that Zarqawi (the famous head of Sunni insurgency) could have been in Iraq without the knowledge of Saddam and his ruthless security service.

For the poster who said we have been "out to get Iraq since the 70s" you are mistaken.

In the 80s I think we were just fine with Saddam. Reagen, Bush and Rumsfeld were all apparently fine with him, and we supplied him generously during his war against Ayatollah Khomeini. It is the height of hypocricy IMO that were just A-OK with him until his invasion of Kuwait.

(December 29, 2015 at 5:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

That is a laughably false analogy.

This is a little OT, but before the Iraq invasion, was it possible to visit Iraq as a tourist?

I suppose in the 90s it was relatively peaceful. Perhaps it would be like visiting a communist country, in that it would be very difficult to enter and you'd be constantly monitored by some security goon if you got in?

It would probably have been quite depressing in the 90s. It would have been in the aftermath of Saddam killing about half a million people in a failed uprising against him, complete with plenty of bombing targets from Gulf War.

You might be treated to the site of UN Weapons inspectors fruitlessly searching for things, as well as a "We love Saddam!" Parade.

Has anyone been to Baathist Iraq?

A shame I didn't go when it still existed