The Iraq War was justified, in several ways.

[HillGoose]

-  Saddam Hussein agreed not to shoot at American planes anymore after the Gulf War, which he did every day while Bill "The coward who let a million Rwandans butcher each other" Clinton was in office.

- The war on terror is not just a war on terrorists, it is a war on regimes who in any way support or prop up those who wish to do America harm. Don't act like Ba'athist Iraq wanted to protect America in any way.

- No one here wants to talk about Georges Sada, a general in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who let America know that Saddam Hussein used the Zeyzoun dam disaster in the summer of 2002 to transport the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed to Bashar Al-Assad's Syria. If no threat of war or American invasion was present, Saddam Hussein would without a doubt have used the WMDs to strike the East Coast, killing millions of Americans. Unless you watch FOX News, you wouldn't have heard anything Georges Sada said.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

[DavidB.]

Saddam Hussein was a b**tch and I'm glad the Americans decided to end his regime of terror. The way the intervention was handled after removing Saddam from power, however, was a disaster.

[TPIG]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

He killed SOME terrorists who challenged his rule, but he supported other terrorist groups that were, for political and ideological reasons, close to him. Obviously the Iraq War should not have taken place the way it did, but to act as if Saddam Hussein was some great, anti-terror crusader is to ignore reality.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/07/donald-trump/was-saddam-hussein-good-killing-terrorists-donald-/

[DavidB.]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

You're a worthless progressive if you are okay with Saddam's gas attacks on Kurds.

[AtorBoltox]

‘Stable force’ that committed genocide and started an 8 year long war with Iran that killed half a million people. By 2003 Iraq was not a serious threat, but to say Saddam was a ‘stabilising force’ reflects a lack of knowledge about his regime, to say the least

[junior chįmp]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

You're a worthless progressive if you are okay with Saddam's gas attacks on Kurds.

America sold him the gas bruh

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

- No one here wants to talk about Georges Sada, a general in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who let America know that Saddam Hussein used the Zeyzoun dam disaster in the summer of 2002 to transport the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed to Bashar Al-Assad's Syria. If no threat of war or American invasion was present, Saddam Hussein would without a doubt have used the WMDs to strike the East Coast, killing millions of Americans. Unless you watch FOX News, you wouldn't have heard anything Georges Sada said.

Stop doing that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is an example of a lie that has been repeated so many times that it is accepted as the truth.  Bush did NOT lie about Saddam Hussein having WMDs.  He acted based on numerous intelligence reports, both foreign and domestic, which said that Iraq had continued to seek them.  (I realize that not everyone believed it at the time, but plenty of people still did.)  People often forget that after Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, President Clinton authorized a bombing campaign of Iraq to degrade their WMD capabilities.  Did Clinton intentionally lie to the public?  No, he acted based on the best knowledge he had; because Saddam wouldn't allow the UN inspectors in, it was safe to assume he was still trying to develop WMDs in violation of the peace agreement from the Gulf War.  And that was the same assumption that Bush made when he took office.  It was only after the invasion that the intelligence and assumption were discovered to be (mostly) inaccurate.  But even then, chemical weapons dating back to the Gulf War period were recently discovered in Iraq.  Moreover, even Bob Woodward declared the claim that "Bush lied" was a myth.  Bush did not intentionally mislead anyone, and in order to lie he would have had to know that Iraq didn't still have WMDs but said so anyway, which he did not.

I personally believe that the Bush administration's intent for the Iraq war was always based primarily on establishing democracy in a Muslim nation (although protecting Israel and WMDs were secondary factors).  The reasoning went something like this: if Iraq can successfully transition to democracy, then they will make the Middle East more peaceful, reducing the terrorist threat both to America and to Israel, and it will set an example for the rest of the region to become democratic, which will further promote peace.  But because the administration knew they couldn't sell a war to the public or the UN based on democratic peace theory, they resorted to the WMD argument instead.

Of course, just because the war was justified doesn't mean it was the right decision, but I digress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

You're a worthless progressive if you are okay with Saddam's gas attacks on Kurds.

Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam and sold him more weapons after that.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

These things are hard to justify. Sadaam was a mega HP and had to go, but invading with no plan for the inevitable power vacuum was supremely irresponsible. Honestly, you could put the blame on the WWI victors for not propping up and reforming the Ottomans. Many Middle East conflicts trace all the way back to that.

[Cashew]

No, backstabbing an ally to prop up a reactionary gulf monarchy was not justifiable, but at least neocons can take solace in the fact that they managed to hand over Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence.

[Cory]

No one here wants to talk about Georges Sada, a general in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who let America know that Saddam Hussein used the Zeyzoun dam disaster in the summer of 2002 to transport the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed to Bashar Al-Assad's Syria. If no threat of war or American invasion was present, Saddam Hussein would without a doubt have used the WMDs to strike the East Coast, killing millions of Americans. Unless you watch FOX News, you wouldn't have heard anything Georges Sada said.

- There is no evidence to back this up whatsoever other then "this one guy said". The Saddam regime did not in any way get along with the Assad regime and there would be no reason for Syria to go along with this even if they did. syria had an organic chemical weapons program going back to the 1970's. Keep in mind that Syria actually declared war against Iraq during the First Gulf War.

- That's just retarded. If you actually think that than you honestly have zero clue about what you're talking about whatsoever.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Saddam Hussein killed terrorists. He was the stable force in the middle east until the Americans screwed it up.

good to see you would have supported him in the Iran-Iraq War, I guess? (Much like America itself)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I personally believe that the Bush administration's intent for the Iraq war was always based primarily on establishing democracy in a Muslim nation (although protecting Israel and WMDs were secondary factors).  The reasoning went something like this: if Iraq can successfully transition to democracy, then they will make the Middle East more peaceful, reducing the terrorist threat both to America and to Israel, and it will set an example for the rest of the region to become democratic, which will further promote peace.  But because the administration knew they couldn't sell a war to the public or the UN based on democratic peace theory, they resorted to the WMD argument instead.

Misleading the public over the real reason you want to go to war is little better than a conscious lie.

It's a simple fact that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq weeks after 9/11. It's also a simple fact that the Bush administration seriously leant on the CIA to provide evidence that Iraq had WMDs. What Cheney and co. believed in their own heads does not excuse them from fixing the case to go to war. Everything was for public consumption to justify a decision which had already been made on other grounds (securing US hegemony in the ME).

[SATW]

Saddam Hussein was a b**tch and I'm glad the Americans decided to end his regime of terror. The way the intervention was handled after removing Saddam from power, however, was a disaster.

[fluffypanther19]

Saddam Hussein was a b**tch and I'm glad the Americans decided to end his regime of terror. The way the intervention was handled after removing Saddam from power, however, was a disaster.

[HillGoose]

Saddam Hussein was a b**tch and I'm glad the Americans decided to end his regime of terror. The way the intervention was handled after removing Saddam from power, however, was a disaster.

the only mistake was that Obama and the Democrats were determined to withdraw from Iraq and did so about 50 to 100 years too early

[Blair]

Saddam Hussein was a b**tch and I'm glad the Americans decided to end his regime of terror. The way the intervention was handled after removing Saddam from power, however, was a disaster.

the only mistake was that Obama and the Democrats were determined to withdraw from Iraq and did so about 50 to 100 years too early

The decision was made by Bush in 2008, but you're sounding like a parody account.

[catographer]

as a matter of principle, we shouldnt invade other countries just because their leader sucks.
we should invade when our safety or when world peace is at stake. saddam hussein didn't harbor al qaeda, wasnt responsible for 9/11, didnt have nukes nor WMDs.

kim jong un sucks, we dont invade him.
plenty of middle eastern dictators murder their people but we dont invade them.
i make exception to assisting in an ongoing conflict (syrian civil war, libyan civil war).

[Cory]

as a matter of principle, we shouldnt invade other countries just because their leader sucks.
we should invade when our safety or when world peace is at stake. saddam hussein didn't harbor al qaeda, wasnt responsible for 9/11, didnt have nukes nor WMDs.

kim jong un sucks, we dont invade him.
plenty of middle eastern dictators murder their people but we dont invade them.
i make exception to assisting in an ongoing conflict (syrian civil war, libyan civil war).

Also as a matter of principle, you should learn how to use capital letters where appropriate.

[catographer]

as a matter of principle, we shouldnt invade other countries just because their leader sucks.
we should invade when our safety or when world peace is at stake. saddam hussein didn't harbor al qaeda, wasnt responsible for 9/11, didnt have nukes nor WMDs.

kim jong un sucks, we dont invade him.
plenty of middle eastern dictators murder their people but we dont invade them.
i make exception to assisting in an ongoing conflict (syrian civil war, libyan civil war).

Also as a matter of principle, you should learn how to use capital letters where appropriate.

lOl soMeone's agrO.

[All Along The Watchtower]

no

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

no

[CatoMinor]

No one disputes Saddam was a terrible human being who terrorized his own people. But it takes sheer ignorance to the facts and history to not see our invasion being B.S. and a historic blunder that has ruined millions of lives

The invasion destabilized the region, was poorly executed from the beginning with no exit strategy, caused the deaths of anywhere from half a millions people to over a million, and set the stage for even greater terrorist threats to emerge in communities where they previously had little support.   

Your argument involves fantasized what-if scenarios of Saddam not having to worry about our presence that have zero basis in reality or evidence. He already had the Iraq-Iran war and the First Gulf War knock him down several pegs and was little threat outside his own country.