The Iraq War was justified, in several ways.

[Goldwater]

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.

[Sailor Haumea]

The Iraq War was the right war fought the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Bush should have let the weapons inspectors do their job, and then get an AUMF passed through Congress stating that intervention was authorized because Saddam Hussein committed genocide and was arming terrorists (no, he was not linked to Al Qaeda, but he tried to have George H. W. Bush assassinated with a car bomb in 1994). The problem with Iraq isn't that we went in, it's that Bush had no desire to attempt to rebuild the country. The Bush administration expected the people of Iraq to rebuild their country all on their own. They never made an attempt to aid in building democratic institutions in Iraq. In short, the Bush administration was utterly incompetent at reconstructing Iraq, because Bush stuck to his stated opposition of nation-building that he expressed in the 2000 debates. You cannot topple a dictator and then abandon the country to let its inhabitants rebuild it all on their own. It didn't have to be this way - a different, more competent administration could have successfully rebuilt Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But the Bush administration was not competent.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can't possibly agree with "going to war was a noble idea, but the execution was bad" line, since it was clear from day one the U.S. went to war for reasons that were anything but noble: the oil, expanding its sphere of influence etc. The welfare of Iraqi people was never a factor.

Beside, as long as the U.S. props up other oppressive regimes around the world there's simply no place for pretending to have a moral high ground here.

[Lechasseur]

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.

[Sailor Haumea]

I can't possibly agree with "going to war was a noble idea, but the execution was bad" line, since it was clear from day one the U.S. went to war for reasons that were anything but noble: the oil, expanding its sphere of influence etc. The welfare of Iraqi people was never a factor.

Beside, as long as the U.S. props up other oppressive regimes around the world there's simply no place for pretending to have a moral high ground here.

There is literally ZERO basis for the conspiracy theorist nonsense that you're spewing about it being a war for oil. Stop watching Michael Moore films.

[Sailor Haumea]

I can't possibly agree with "going to war was a noble idea, but the execution was bad" line, since it was clear from day one the U.S. went to war for reasons that were anything but noble: the oil, expanding its sphere of influence etc. The welfare of Iraqi people was never a factor.

Beside, as long as the U.S. props up other oppressive regimes around the world there's simply no place for pretending to have a moral high ground here.

There is literally ZERO basis for the conspiracy theorist nonsense that you're spewing about it being a war for oil. Stop watching Michael Moore films.

All right, let's assume for this discussion's sake we can take this one off. Would you kindly enlighten us about the reasons U.S. went to Iraq?

A sincere belief, based on faulty intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-failure-in-iraq-a-retrospective-analysis-of-the-reconstruction/

EVERYONE thought that Saddam was trying to get nuclear WMDs. Because he wanted everyone to THINK he did - he was bluffing.

In addition to the suspicion that he possessed WMDs, there was the fact that he had committed genocide and had links to terrorist organizations (but not Al Qaeda). He tried to have George H. W. Bush assassinated in Kuwait in 1994 with a car bomb.

George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform of non-interventionism. He voiced opposition to nation-building and intervention in Iraq, saying that he would just increase the sanctions. Gore was the more hawkish candidate, stating that he wanted to provide arms to rebels in Iraq. If not for 9/11, Bush would never have gone to war because nothing would have happened to cause him to pivot to interventionism. All that he would have done in such a scenario is strengthen the sanctions, and that's it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can't possibly agree with "going to war was a noble idea, but the execution was bad" line, since it was clear from day one the U.S. went to war for reasons that were anything but noble: the oil, expanding its sphere of influence etc. The welfare of Iraqi people was never a factor.

Beside, as long as the U.S. props up other oppressive regimes around the world there's simply no place for pretending to have a moral high ground here.

There is literally ZERO basis for the conspiracy theorist nonsense that you're spewing about it being a war for oil. Stop watching Michael Moore films.

All right, let's assume for this discussion's sake we can take this one off. Would you kindly enlighten us about the reasons U.S. went to Iraq?

A sincere belief, based on faulty intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-failure-in-iraq-a-retrospective-analysis-of-the-reconstruction/

EVERYONE thought that Saddam was trying to get nuclear WMDs. Because he wanted everyone to THINK he did - he was bluffing.

Which was idiotic on his part, no arguing here. However there was absolutely no consensus about Iraq posing immediate threat that would require skipping all options that should've been utilized before going to war. Saddam might've wanted the world to think so, but even then the actual intelligence evidence was murky at best. So do we have to accept the entire U.S. intelligence community was run by idiots or that the administration heard only what they wanted to hear?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sceptical about the humanitarian reasons ever being a real consideration. First off, there's a small matter of consistency, for if genocide prevention via military measures if neccesary was a U.S. policy then we should've seen actions in numerous African location experiencing ethnic cleansing and state-conducted mass murders. However, most of these countries represents no strategic importance, as opposed to Iraq.

Also, there were ways to prevent any subsquent genocide without full-blown military intervention. For example the establishment of no-flying zones essentially expelled Saddam from the Iraqi Kurdistan. A more level headed approach to sanctions wouldn't hurt, since those existing instead were mostly hitting innocent civilian population instead of actually undermining the regime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what we can't say for sure. Aside of having to take what a candidate says during the election with the grain of salt, especially given how Bush presidency played out in general, the administration seemed too trigger-happy regarding Iraq.


Just a side note here, I don't think anybody have an answer how the occupation should've been handled diffrently to prevent the outcome we're dealing with now other than usual wishful whinking. The entire enterprise was basically shooting blind.

[Sailor Haumea]

"I'm sceptical about the humanitarian reasons ever being a real consideration. First off, there's a small matter of consistency, for if genocide prevention via military measures if neccesary was a U.S. policy then we should've seen actions in numerous African location experiencing ethnic cleansing and state-conducted mass murders. However, most of these countries represents no strategic importance, as opposed to Iraq."

The actions of previous administrations don't mean that what the current administration does is connected. Just because Nixon and Kissinger pursued a deranged foreign policy that wasn't focused on establishing liberal democracies and instead propped up dictatorships in the name of "anti-communism" doesn't magically mean that George W. Bush can't sincerely want to overthrow Saddam Hussein to establish a democratic Iraq. That's not how things work. Bush is not Richard Nixon.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"I'm sceptical about the humanitarian reasons ever being a real consideration. First off, there's a small matter of consistency, for if genocide prevention via military measures if neccesary was a U.S. policy then we should've seen actions in numerous African location experiencing ethnic cleansing and state-conducted mass murders. However, most of these countries represents no strategic importance, as opposed to Iraq."

The actions of previous administrations don't mean that what the current administration does is connected. Just because Nixon and Kissinger pursued a deranged foreign policy that wasn't focused on establishing liberal democracies and instead propped up dictatorships in the name of "anti-communism" doesn't magically mean that George W. Bush can't sincerely want to overthrow Saddam Hussein to establish a democratic Iraq. That's not how things work. Bush is not Richard Nixon.

I would have easier time believing that if at the same time Bush actively worked to push U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia to liberalize and pressure Turkey to stop their routine military campaigns against the Kurds at home and abroad. Instead what we've seen was a very selective "idealism". And, going back to Iraq, the overall track record shows how frequently does that brand of "idealistic interventionism" results in a truly terrible outcome. Things just aren't that simple.

Speaking of Nixon and Kissinger, while abhorring a large part of their policy, I'm personally grateful, as a Pole, for them pursuing Detente with the Eastern Bloc, because the climate of relaxation in international relations contributed to relaxation of the regime's domestic grip, greatly contributing to a emergence of such dissident organizations as Workers' Defense Committee, which was a direct precursor of the Solidarity. That "peaceful pause" in the 70s made the eventual downfall of the Communist Bloc easier, even though it might've looked on paper as abandonment of the "principles".

[brucejoel99]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

[Sailor Haumea]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Once again, there is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories.

[brucejoel99]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Once again, there is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were longstanding advocates of using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." The primary reason for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings in 2002, was "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States" in any way.

Additionally, Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two NSC meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, & divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," & included a map of potential areas for exploration.

And just b/c you don't agree that some of those behind the execution of the war were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory lmao. Deriving logical conclusions from understood premises which are known &/or presumed to be true is deduction, which is likely to be correct.

[Sailor Haumea]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Once again, there is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were longstanding advocates of using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." The primary reason for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings in 2002, was "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States" in any way.

Additionally, Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two NSC meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, & divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," & included a map of potential areas for exploration.

And just b/c you don't agree that some of those behind the execution of the war were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory lmao. Deriving logical conclusions from understood premises which are known &/or presumed to be true is deduction, which is likely to be correct.

There's literally nothing wrong with any of this, especially the first paragraph.

That is a very vague description of the plan put forward for Iraqi oil fields. That NSC Plan advocated for the maintaining of the Iraqi national oil companies, and opening the economy slowly to foreign investment in oil. The list of foreign suitors included companies from 30 different countries. It was also put together with the help of Falah Al Jibury - then advisor to the Iraqi oil companies.

All things considered, it's really not even that big of a deal, doesn't prove jack sh**t, and is part of a larger reconstruction plan.

Your "gotcha" is a nothing burger.

[brucejoel99]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Once again, there is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were longstanding advocates of using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." The primary reason for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings in 2002, was "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States" in any way.

Additionally, Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two NSC meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, & divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," & included a map of potential areas for exploration.

And just b/c you don't agree that some of those behind the execution of the war were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory lmao. Deriving logical conclusions from understood premises which are known &/or presumed to be true is deduction, which is likely to be correct.

There's literally nothing wrong with any of this, especially the first paragraph.

That is a very vague description of the plan put forward for Iraqi oil fields. That NSC Plan advocated for the maintaining of the Iraqi national oil companies, and opening the economy slowly to foreign investment in oil. The list of foreign suitors included companies from 30 different countries. It was also put together with the help of Falah Al Jibury - then advisor to the Iraqi oil companies.

All things considered, it's really not even that big of a deal, doesn't prove jack sh**t, and is part of a larger reconstruction plan.

Your "gotcha" is a nothing burger.

Your claims that "[T]here is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories" & "There's literally nothing wrong with any of this" are now serving to contradict each other.

Just for a sec, let's disregard the fact that nobody is pushing "conspiracy theories" here & remember that what was stated is that potential ignoble behind-the-scenes rationales for the war could've been oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Going to war to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." &  "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States in any way" is going to war to expand our sphere of influence, whether you wish to concede so or not, & considering the public was told none of this & was instead given a completely different rationale (which was possibly manufactured, as I'll touch upon momentarily), I'd say that's ignoble.

Going to war to "[divvy] up Iraq's oil wealth" is going to war for oil, whether you wish to concede so or not, & considering the public wasn't told this & was instead given a completely different rationale, I'd say that's ignoble.

I'm sorry you fail to comprehend what has been presented as meeting whatever your arbitrary threshold for "evidence" is, but at a certain point, it's your problem, not mine.

And btw, you say you think we went to war due to "A sincere belief, based on faulty intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons of mass destruction," but some of those in positions of power at the time have already conceded that that the intelligence & facts were being solely fixed around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power, not nukes. Let me guess, though, that "gotcha" is a "nothing burger" too, right?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm troubled with the reasoning that "good intentions" can serve as a justification here. What really matters in the end are the results, and the results are pretty tragic. (All this assuming Bush's motivations were of a humanitarian nature, something I'm not convinced about at all). And going to war on a whim (and given the lack of immediate threat and other options being far from exhausted, that's what happened then) is not justified, just as plunging head on into such an enterprise based on inconclusive intelligence is not justified as well. And it's pretty clear the administration wasn't just basing its assumption on faulty intelligence, it was actively pushing the course from the beggining.

[HillGoose]

I'm troubled with the reasoning that "good intentions" can serve as a justification here. What really matters in the end are the results, and the results are pretty tragic. (All this assuming Bush's motivations were of a humanitarian nature, something I'm not convinced about at all). And going to war on a whim (and given the lack of immediate threat and other options being far from exhausted, that's what happened then) is not justified, just as plunging head on into such an enterprise based on inconclusive intelligence is not justified as well. And it's pretty clear the administration wasn't just basing its assumption on faulty intelligence, it was actively pushing the course from the beggining.

Is Saddam breaking a ceasefire agreement every day for 12 years not a good enough justification?

I would say we waited too long, because clearly Saddam was walking all over us.

[Sailor Haumea]

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.

... w/ the caveat that some of those behind the execution of the war (such as Cheney) were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, mainly oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Once again, there is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were longstanding advocates of using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." The primary reason for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings in 2002, was "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States" in any way.

Additionally, Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two NSC meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, & divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," & included a map of potential areas for exploration.

And just b/c you don't agree that some of those behind the execution of the war were likely motivated by ignoble reasons, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory lmao. Deriving logical conclusions from understood premises which are known &/or presumed to be true is deduction, which is likely to be correct.

There's literally nothing wrong with any of this, especially the first paragraph.

That is a very vague description of the plan put forward for Iraqi oil fields. That NSC Plan advocated for the maintaining of the Iraqi national oil companies, and opening the economy slowly to foreign investment in oil. The list of foreign suitors included companies from 30 different countries. It was also put together with the help of Falah Al Jibury - then advisor to the Iraqi oil companies.

All things considered, it's really not even that big of a deal, doesn't prove jack sh**t, and is part of a larger reconstruction plan.

Your "gotcha" is a nothing burger.

Your claims that "[T]here is zero evidence for these conspiracy theories" & "There's literally nothing wrong with any of this" are now serving to contradict each other.

Just for a sec, let's disregard the fact that nobody is pushing "conspiracy theories" here & remember that what was stated is that potential ignoble behind-the-scenes rationales for the war could've been oil & potential expansion of our sphere of influence.

Going to war to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..." &  "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone w/ the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States in any way" is going to war to expand our sphere of influence, whether you wish to concede so or not, & considering the public was told none of this & was instead given a completely different rationale (which was possibly manufactured, as I'll touch upon momentarily), I'd say that's ignoble.

Going to war to "[divvy] up Iraq's oil wealth" is going to war for oil, whether you wish to concede so or not, & considering the public wasn't told this & was instead given a completely different rationale, I'd say that's ignoble.

I'm sorry you fail to comprehend what has been presented as meeting whatever your arbitrary threshold for "evidence" is, but at a certain point, it's your problem, not mine.

And btw, you say you think we went to war due to "A sincere belief, based on faulty intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons of mass destruction," but some of those in positions of power at the time have already conceded that that the intelligence & facts were being solely fixed around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power, not nukes. Let me guess, though, that "gotcha" is a "nothing burger" too, right?

It doesn't matter if they advocated an invasion of Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act was a thing. It should have been a priority to invade Iraq. The problem is that we did it for the wrong reasons and that the post war management was terrible. Also, you're misrepresenting sh**t.

A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," & included a map of potential areas for exploration.

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/cheney_s-energy-task-force-mapped-iraq_s-oilfields-during-20011.pdf

The document below, “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,”
dated March 5, 2001, lists firms that have oil contracts for the individual
oilfields, as well as the current status of those contracts.

This obviously is not the same sh**t at all. Likewise, "divvying up Iraq's oil wealth" is probably bullsh**t. I would be willing to bet that the first paragraph is taken out of context massively.

The primary reason for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings in 2002, was "to create a demonstration model" to deter anyone with the temerity to "flout the authority of the United States" in any way.

If you can't source this with real super hard information, you're screwed. This is an EXTREMELY heavy statement to make. Wikipedia is not sufficient to prove something like this. I could just counterargue that the primary reason was what convinced Congress and the American people, which was WMD intelligence failure.