Thread: War in Iraq justified?

Do you think the war in Iraq was justified?

Ending Saddam's power grip was and is justified, being that we should have taken him out after the first Gulf War, and possibly before his 17 or so inabilities to follow UN orders to comply with weapons inspections, kind of suspicious, when you think he has WMD's.

The resulting conflict, created partly by a weak strategy (something resembling the take and give back strategy of Vietnam), but also by penetrating insurgants from al queda and Iranian tied terrorists who fuel sectarian violence while blowing up markets and other civilian occupied areas daily.

It is yet to be seen whether or not the war is justified. At this point in time, the war really does hinge on whether or not politicians in the US will give the new strategy a chance to secure the country enough to allow politicians in Iraq a chance to create a stable democratic governement.

No. It was an enterprise that accomplished little and was wasteful of both life and money.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

No. It was an enterprise that accomplished little and was wasteful of both life and money.

17 broken resolutions, intelligence agencies in the United States and other countries saying Saddam had WMDs, and ties to terrorism is not enough to justify the removal of a murderous dictator?

Originally Posted by Conservative15

17 broken resolutions, intelligence agencies in the United States and other countries saying Saddam had WMDs, and ties to terrorism is not enough to justify the removal of a murderous dictator?

It's always amusing to hear the people who decry the UN, as corrupt and useless, attempt to use UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq. What their argument fails to acknowledge was that the UN OPPOSED (as in failed to support) the US call for the use of military force. IF they opposed the action, then clearly the UN DID NOT concur that the evidence was compelling or that military force was required. That being the case, the attempt to claim those resolutions were the basis for us going to war is sheer and unadulterated nonsense.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

It's always amusing to hear the people who decry the UN, as corrupt and useless, attempt to use UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq. What their argument fails to acknowledge was that the UN OPPOSED (as in failed to support) the US call for the use of military force. IF they opposed the action, then clearly the UN DID NOT concur that the evidence was compelling or that military force was required. That being the case, the attempt to claim those resolutions were the basis for us going to war is sheer and unadulterated nonsense.

Of course they didn't feel military force was necessary, for a decade they felt allowing Saddam to spit on the international community was acceptable. The only reason people use the UN as an example, is because of those who cleverly use the UN as the compass for foreign policy in america, if that was done, we would pay for everything in the world, while allowing Islamic-fascists excuse me regional fighters or whatever theyre calling religous, murderous zealots today.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

It's always amusing to hear the people who decry the UN, as corrupt and useless, attempt to use UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq.

There was nothing wrong with the resolutions. Saddam was proven to have broken the resolution. What do you think "serious consequences" means?

What their argument fails to acknowledge was that the UN OPPOSED (as in failed to support) the US call for the use of military force.

What does "serious consequences" mean to you?

Also, do you think we should only defend ourselves if the U.N. says it is OK?

IF they opposed the action, then clearly the UN DID NOT concur that the evidence was compelling or that military force was required.

The evidence showed that Saddam did not fully comply with the resolution.

That being the case, the attempt to claim those resolutions were the basis for us going to war is sheer and unadulterated nonsense.

The 17 broken resolutions strengthens the case against Saddam.

Originally Posted by NedC

Of course they didn't feel military force was necessary, for a decade they felt allowing Saddam to spit on the international community was acceptable. The only reason people use the UN as an example, is because of those who cleverly use the UN as the compass for foreign policy in america, if that was done, we would pay for everything in the world, while allowing Islamic-fascists excuse me regional fighters or whatever theyre calling religous, murderous zealots today.

Rationalize it all you want. The reality is that the UN DID NOT CONCUR that the use of military force(as advocated by the US) was necessary. This means that proponents of this war CAN NOT use UN resolutions as a justification for invasion of Iraq.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

It's always amusing to hear the people who decry the UN, as corrupt and useless, attempt to use UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq. What their argument fails to acknowledge was that the UN OPPOSED (as in failed to support) the US call for the use of military force. IF they opposed the action, then clearly the UN DID NOT concur that the evidence was compelling or that military force was required. That being the case, the attempt to claim those resolutions were the basis for us going to war is sheer and unadulterated nonsense.

I could care less about his defying the U.N. It was his continued shooting at U.S. and Brittish planes that pissed me off.

Originally Posted by Conservative15

There was nothing wrong with the resolutions. Saddam was proven to have broken the resolution. What do you think "serious consequences" means?



What does "serious consequences" mean to you?

Also, do you think we should only defend ourselves if the U.N. says it is OK?



The evidence showed that Saddam did not fully comply with the resolution.



The 17 broken resolutions strengthens the case against Saddam.

Another straw man argument. The UN did not concur- therefore you can't use their resolutoins as a justification... it's really that simple.

And after we invaded Iraq and found NO stockpiles of WMDs, no ongoing nuclear program, no evidence what-so-ever to justify that part of the Administration's case what did we do? We changed the mission. Suddenly it was never about WMDs, it was about getting Saddam. Funny, but I'm thinking that if the case for the UMF had been based EXCLUSIVELY on getting Saddam- I don't think it would have flown. The administration's claims (and those of their cheerleaders) on this matter have been thoroughly debunked at this point.

On the issue of Saddam being a lunatic and a monster: Granted this was true, but the world ABOUNDS with lunatics and monsters. It is not our job to get rid of them all.

In closing I would point out that the only "mission accomplished" in Iraq (by this administration) has been to destabilize the region to the point where we can't leave.