Staredit Network

Seeing as how there is a lot of discussion about the war in Iraq, why don't we have our own little discussion here on SEN.

I could go on for hours about this.... instead i think ill just go with NO

EDIT: muhahaha! this was the 123rd post in the serious discusion forum!

Theres too many thoughts running through my head when I consider this question, and itll take a while to sort them out, so heres just some scrambles.

Bush and co. mightve had claimed good intentions when going into Iraq.
Motive: weapons of mass destructions. However, upon finding none, their initial motive is questioned, and eventually invalid.
Motive: taking down an oppressive leader (I guess). Okay, fine, Hussein is removed. Now what? Sacrifice money and lives to help rebuild some country that isnt ours? Leaning towards empiralism (I think thats the right term)

They have that little saying, and I probably messed up a part or two, on the End Justifys the Mean. Not in this case, where just going into this war received relatively little support from other countries AND within the U.S. If you take a retrospective look at WWII, there was lots of support for the Allies.

SUMMARY: No.

We had very good reason to go to Iraq; unfortunatly Bush did not manipulate these reasons well enough, which allowed the public to see he was after revenge, oil, and a bigger ego.

You may say that we should pull out now, but I wonder how plausible that would be. We blew up (in the generalist of terms) Germany during WWI, let them pay for what we did, and so they retaliated years later with a freaky ass army. I think that is one of the minor motives why Bush hasn't withdrawn from Iraq. The other reasons is for money and oil. Lots and lots of oil.

They only wanted the oil England I have no F**knig idea why we joined in, Bloodly blair. They used that guy sadan as the reason to get in there. and now they took him, they stay in hhere saying they retail so we must stop this retail, the only reason irag retails is cos they dotn want them in there home land.

NO semply NO

It's too late to pull out now, so you can forget that idea.

Bush pulled a fast one when he brought us to war - he jumped to conclusions that just happened to benefit his friends, family, and business associates more than anyone else. Saddam was contained and the weapons inspectors found nothing, so why did we go to war? There was no threat, and Bush knew it. But he lied. So here we are, in this mess.

I think that there is no point in the convostation because its alreadty happened, nothing is going to chnage it!

I agree with High, but (at the risk of sounding like one of those crazy activists) we need to tell people about how stupid we've been in the past and try to avoid doing that in the future.

The real question should be how are we going to get us out of this mess now that we screwed ourselves over?

I'm probably the only one that will say it was justified, only because I wanted to show the other side.
Bush would never go to war without good reason to; he believed Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. He did not just jump into a war because he wanted to conquer a nation. How can you say there was no threat? Of course there was a threat. The weapons inspectors found nothing because Iraq is not is stupid as you think. Put yourself in Saddam's position, "Hmm, America is coming soon to check our country for weapons." Well do you think he just sat around and just left incriminating evidence around, No. I'm guessing he was smart, and had all of the weapons moved to a safer, friendly country, so he would not be caught.

And, even if there were no weapons to start with. We were still able to unseat one of the most vicious dictators of our time. Imagine if Saddam were still in power, he would still be terrorizing his people.

I think it was good but I'm a Bush supporter..l

What about the other viscious dictators? There are plenty worse than Saddam. Let's see, half of all the countries in Africa are dictators who use torture, rape, and assassination to terrorize their people. Kim Jong Il of North Korea has nuclear weapons, and he's not afraid to use them. Would you consider him to be a bigger threat than Saddam, who had no WMDs?

By your logic, any of the aforementioned dictators would be justified in attacking us. With the "get them before they get us" philosophy, anyone can attack anyone and rationalize it. Let's get the facts straight. Bush received no correct intelligence that directly stated that Saddam had WMDs in his possession and was pointing them at America. It was all supposition, which is not a justification for the deaths of 900 of our soldiers, not to mention the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians and militiamen.

I agree with Gary Trudeau's statement towards those who voted for Ralph Nader, only I'm directing it towards President Bush: "How do you sleep?"

I think it is unfair, just get Saddam and kill him...

Oh yeah... what are Minerals for?

that's true, too many times have I found people who think that 'the bad guys' are stupid, only because they are bad. However, where would the weapons go? I don't know where they could hide them suddenly.

As for what Nozomu said about North Korea: North Korea in my opinion is a bit more intimidating than Iraq.

I believe that the war was justified on some accounts. But what I really do not like is how they handled the main action. Last time during operation Desert storm we bombed them 24/7 for like a week, B-2 bombers would leave the sirbase in south carolina (i forget the name) and be headed straight to Iraq let their bombs go and fly back. Doing those continuous bomb runs instead of doing a little bit of bombing then sensding in troops saved a whole lot of lives. More people died from helicopter accidents in Desert storm than people that actually died during combat. Operation Iraqi freedom was pushed way too fast and led to some piss ass planning. It just ticks me off at the lack of planning they did. Now 900 of our soldiers are dead because of it. I opartly blame bush for us being over there in the first place. But I also blame the stupid generals currently in command that did not look back on Desert storm as some sort of guide at the very least ing stupidity is what it is.

Of course North Korea is more intimidating than Iraq. At the start of this war Iraq was not a threat to anyone. In actuality neither was N.Korea, but in that case they have nuclear weapons and other WMD's while Iraq has none. If there were ever any weapons in Iraq they were not hidden suddenly, at the first sign that those inspectors just might come they shipped them off to where ever.

NK is a worry yes, but if they use a nuke, they would be blown out of existance

Along with the rest of the planet. There are no winners in a nuclear war. There's no such thing as "acceptable losses", in my opinion.

NK may be dangerous but they arent idiots. They would never nuke the country that happens to have more nuclear weapons than that country has square miles. There can only be a winner in a "nuclear war" if one country (NK) has an enormous lack of them. And in this case whatrs the difference between nuclear war with NK and just plain war, actually nothing at all. NK would still be wiped out, cluster bombs, carpet bombs,napalm.

What does the rest of the planet have to do with NK getting blown out of existence ? Nothing unless another country decided to get into the "nuclear war", which could easily be China the mother country to NK. (also the country with the 3rd largest nuclear weapon stockpile)

exactly my thought Helios, any country what has the guts to directly attack aemerica and take open responciliblity has a death wish.

Terroism workd by being underground, America has to go looking for them, so they can plan more.

We can spend hours on this question but I'll just keep saying "No"

Let me just sum up my opinion in a single word: NO. The war in Iraq was nothing more than Dubya carrying out his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein under the guise of finding WMDs, none of which have been found. Oh, and oil.

The war on iraq was good for the people, bad for saddam. I believe there were WMD, but saddam ordered them destoryed before the UN got to it. Saddam tortured his people and his youngest son, Uday, tortured olympians if they didnt get back medals. So, I think the war was justified.

What about the other countries who have leaders that do the same thing? Are they next on our hit list? Under our own rules they would be perfectly justified in attacking us, saying it was in self-defense.

that dumbass bush wouldnt know his rear end from a 'ling end. (heh sc humor)
anyways back to the point. the only reason he did the crap he did was he had to settle was his dad caused in iraq. his dad didnt like sadam and niether did he. oh ya and the reason hes so stupid was because he was a hardcore alchoholic when he was younger, and in college he was a drugee. cocaine to be exact. we need a bush smily so i can use this one next to it:

thank you and goodnight.

If Bush was in line to get his butt booted by Americans. I think 2/3 of the whole population excluding illegal immigrants will boot Bush.