What if Iraq was not invaded?

[Benderino]

Just because someone is a "bully" doesn't justify the invasion and occupation of a nation. This isn't a schoolyard, and the US isn't the teacher restoring order after one kid spit in the other's face. This is real people, real lives, and real deaths. Most people are saying that some more consideration of consequences should have been made before attacking. Not just "can the government be removed", but "should it be removed right now", and "what happens once it is removed"? It is obvious to almost everyone that the follow-up plan never had any clear objectives. It looks to most of the world like Bush and the Boys thought a nice war would be jolly good fun, and hey, we'll just see what happens if we start it.

I agree with you on the latter part, there are better ways, but the situation still warranted our doing something...without leaving out the possibility of war. However, I feel the analogy to a schoolyard is applicable. I acknowledge the reality of the situation, but to me, that is all the more reason to get in there and save the lives of those people. The US is exaclty that, the teacher...if you would prefer, the "leader of the free world". As the soul superpower, we can't sit by and do nothing. I feel we have a responsibility to do what other's can't or refuse to do, eliminate the wrongs of this world. That's where we fundamentally disagree.

 

[FriendlyFire]

My reply to "What should be done to Iraq, if the invasion didn't take place?"

Hypothical Question is > What would have happened IF Iraq gave up its WMD program ?

My sarcastic joke was to point out what is happening in Libya would have happened to Iraq. Nothing wrong taking about "Freedom" and "war on terror" when whats really being done is otherwise. If the Bush administration was honest, dignified, intelligence and competent. Then I would accept they intended to slowly change libya's dictatorship to democracy using, Diplomatic, economic and intelligence in a short of cultural war.

 

[hawai_74]

lift the sanctions and try to normalize by negociations, as Lybia

 

[JohnRM]

the war was necessary for the good of the Iraqi people.

Except for the several thousand that died, eh?

I would agree that the primary issue is that the U.N/those opposed presented no viable alternative for the invasion, which I think was the right choice. Even though the invasion was the right thing to do, it was not the right thing to do with George W. Bush at the helm, which is the real problem with everything. Had it been another, more reasonable leader, we may not be discussing this, at the moment.

 

[Kev1916]

I'll cede that not too many in our government cared, but so what? I care, and I'm a US citizen. The final conclusion is for the betterment of the Iraqi people, regardless of personal motives.
=

Final Conclusion! tell that the the parents of Scottish troops killed in Iraq.


Quote-

Family fury at Scots soldier's death,

Gordon Gentle, 19, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, was killed on Monday in a bomb blast in Basra.

His mother, Rose, 40, claimed he was nothing more than "a bit of meat" to the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. "Why don’t Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon send their own families out to Iraq?," she said. "My son was just a bit of meat to them, just a number. They don’t care about him, all they’re worried about is the next election.

"This is not our war, my son has died in their war over oil and they haven’t even taken the trouble of picking up the phone and say they’re sorry for our loss."

Fusilier Gentle, from the Pollok area of Glasgow, was killed in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack on British military vehicles while on routine patrol in the southern Iraqi city on Monday morning.

His uncle, Gordon, 41, said: "It’s disgusting the way they’ve treated us, poor Gordon was just fodder to them."

Fusilier Gentle also leaves his father, George, 45, and sisters Pamela, 21, and Maxine, 14.

-

This is not our war, we shouldn't be there end of story.

 

[Zeekater]

That doesn't stray from my main point, which was that Saddam was no less of a "bully" even though he may or may not have had WMDs, correct?

No, he wasn't any less of a bully, WMD's aside, he was an murderous idiot who needed replacement. No arguement there
But his bullyness has nothing to do with the starting of the war. that would be like shooting your neighbour because you think he has a gun, and then find out he didn't have one anymore, and then say it was because he spanked his kids.

If the war was started because he was a bully to his own people, there are literally dozens of countries with bullies that can be helped with greater ease, less money, less soldiers.

 

[Benderino]

Except for the several thousand that died, eh?

I would agree that the primary issue is that the U.N/those opposed presented no viable alternative for the invasion, which I think was the right choice. Even though the invasion was the right thing to do, it was not the right thing to do with George W. Bush at the helm, which is the real problem with everything. Had it been another, more reasonable leader, we may not be discussing this, at the moment.

People die in war, that's what happens. The question is whether more will be saved than killed, and I wholeheartedly believe 'yes!'

Secondly, the fact that people died doesn't really seem to bother you, since you said that you support(ed) the invasion, only you regret Bush leading it, so you first point is either a sharp and contradictory jab at war supporters like yourself, or you were actually against the war no matter what.

As to your second point, I agree with you there. I am no friend of Bush, and I think he did a terrible job in planning and gather international support.

 

[Benderino]

I'll cede that not too many in our government cared, but so what? I care, and I'm a US citizen. The final conclusion is for the betterment of the Iraqi people, regardless of personal motives.
=

Final Conclusion! tell that the the parents of Scottish troops killed in Iraq.


Quote-

Family fury at Scots soldier's death,

Gordon Gentle, 19, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, was killed on Monday in a bomb blast in Basra.

His mother, Rose, 40, claimed he was nothing more than "a bit of meat" to the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. "Why don’t Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon send their own families out to Iraq?," she said. "My son was just a bit of meat to them, just a number. They don’t care about him, all they’re worried about is the next election.

"This is not our war, my son has died in their war over oil and they haven’t even taken the trouble of picking up the phone and say they’re sorry for our loss."

Fusilier Gentle, from the Pollok area of Glasgow, was killed in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack on British military vehicles while on routine patrol in the southern Iraqi city on Monday morning.

His uncle, Gordon, 41, said: "It’s disgusting the way they’ve treated us, poor Gordon was just fodder to them."

Fusilier Gentle also leaves his father, George, 45, and sisters Pamela, 21, and Maxine, 14.

-

This is not our war, we shouldn't be there end of story.

This guy volunteered, and he blames Blair for getting killed? I don't mean to dishonor him in any way, but with joining the army comes the knowledge that you may die, it's not like joining a computer software company or something. Blair doesn't have to send his family into the army, he has the freedom not to, just as the Gentle family did.

 

[Benderino]

No, he wasn't any less of a bully, WMD's aside, he was an murderous idiot who needed replacement. No arguement there
But his bullyness has nothing to do with the starting of the war. that would be like shooting your neighbour because you think he has a gun, and then find out he didn't have one anymore, and then say it was because he spanked his kids.

If the war was started because he was a bully to his own people, there are literally dozens of countries with bullies that can be helped with greater ease, less money, less soldiers.

Spanked them? No no no, I'd say more like raped them, beat them, and strangled them to death. You think the Iraqis got off with just a spanking, do you? Yeah, and so did the 13 million dead of the Holocaust then by that logic.

I've said time and time again, I don't care what the president's motives are, I only care that the Iraqis now have their government back, and that we liberated them from a cruel monster. That has happened, regardless of anything to do with oil, or PNAC, or Haliburton, or France.

I also advocate for going after all those bullies out there too. We did in Serbia, Liberia, Afghanistan, Iraq, (tried in Somalia). There are more, and their days are numbered, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[storealex]

In my eyes the invasion is only a bad thing because Bush and his cowboy diplomacy ruined allies support. Because Bush lied about the real reason to go to war and because Paul Bremmer is a fool.
If the invasion had more support.
If we were never lied to.
If USA didn't screw up so much (Like disbanding the Iraqi army - real smart move)

Then I would support the invasion. However, my Country already did support the invasion, even with troops. So we're in there. Now we cannot retreat. We should send more soldiers to help the peace keeping.
________
Free X Rated Videos

 

[JohnRM]

People die in war, that's what happens. The question is whether more will be saved than killed, and I wholeheartedly believe 'yes!'

Secondly, the fact that people died doesn't really seem to bother you, since you said that you support(ed) the invasion, only you regret Bush leading it, so you first point is either a sharp and contradictory jab at war supporters like yourself, or you were actually against the war no matter what.

As to your second point, I agree with you there. I am no friend of Bush, and I think he did a terrible job in planning and gather international support.

I was just pointing out that it was not for the good of all Iraqis.

 

[Kev1916]

This guy volunteered, and he blames Blair for getting killed? I don't mean to dishonor him in any way, but with joining the army comes the knowledge that you may die, it's not like joining a computer software company or something. Blair doesn't have to send his family into the army, he has the freedom not to, just as the Gentle family did.

==




No, his family blame Bliar, this young guy is dead, along with many hundreds of service men and thousands of Iraqi's.

-
but with joining the army comes the knowledge that you may die
---

==

So what! so does joining the fire brigade but committing arson is illegal,


The UK's participation in this madness was based on lies and deceit .

The US isn't there to do the Iraqi's any favours their treatment of the prisoners is one indictor.

There were other options to pursue in dealing with Iraq and your disregard for the dead doesn't lend weight to your point of view that its for the "greater good".

 

[Zeekater]

Spanked them? No no no, I'd say more like raped them, beat them, and strangled them to death. You think the Iraqis got off with just a spanking, do you? Yeah, and so did the 13 million dead of the Holocaust then by that logic.

It was just an example, semantics aside

I've said time and time again, I don't care what the president's motives are, I only care that the Iraqis now have their government back, and that we liberated them from a cruel monster. That has happened, regardless of anything to do with oil, or PNAC, or Haliburton, or France.

I also advocate for going after all those bullies out there too. We did in Serbia, Liberia, Afghanistan, Iraq, (tried in Somalia). There are more, and their days are numbered, as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunatly, you do not run your country, and your views aren't the views of those who do.
Your reasons are the good reasons, and the ones in control should have those reasonings too.

 

[BassDude726]

The truth is, Bush started a war based on lies. President Clinton was impeached for lying about cheating on his wife, and the entire country was in an uproar over it for the better part of a year. Bush's lies have killed thousands of people, and he doesn't have to answer to anybody for it. Clinton's lies killed thousands of sperm, and he had to answer to a full judicial hearing. Is there something horribly wrong with this picture?

 

[Benderino]

It was just an example, semantics aside



Unfortunatly, you do not run your country, and your views aren't the views of those who do.
Your reasons are the good reasons, and the ones in control should have those reasonings too.

Thank you for actually listening.

I acknowledge that my government did everything for the wrong reasons, but I hope to God that the outcome will still be beneficial to the Iraqis, and I don't assume that just because Americans are leading the charge, that everything will end in failure. Only time will tell, but currently, I'm led by hope.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Didn't read all the post. Since the main excuse for invading Iraq is for WMD, they should let the inspection complete so that there is any proof or justification for the invasion and gain international support.

 

[Persia_Immortal]

I dont support the war but if US and her allies don't invade Iraq, many more will still die under Saddam's brutal regime

 

[Akka]

Like many others, I would consider a UN-backed invasion would have been the right thing to do.

Well, in fact, the right thing to do would have been to destroy the Republican Guard in 1991, rather than push minorities to revolt then purposedly not damage too much Saddam's Hussein loyal army, allowing him to crush the rebellions.

Guess we can always be confident that a Bush will f-word up what he can in Iraq...

 

[Ramius75]

I dont support the war but if US and her allies don't invade Iraq, many more will still die under Saddam's brutal regime

The problem is, are there no other way ? An invasion/war should always be the last resort not the first. Bush's approach of gun swinging, lies fabricating method set a bad precendent for future intervention. And a total disregard of civil law. How many civilian were killed ? how many maimed ? how many children made orphan ? Was the country doing better ? Who profited from this ? Will the US be so grace as to self sacrafice for the benefits of Iraqis ? Or is there hidden agenda ?

Maybe u can tell ur statement to anyone who has lost their family members due to the "liberation".

Ramius

 

[luiz]

The problem is, are there no other way ? An invasion/war should always be the last resort not the first. Bush's approach of gun swinging, lies fabricating method set a bad precendent for future intervention. And a total disregard of civil law. How many civilian were killed ? how many maimed ? how many children made orphan ? Was the country doing better ? Who profited from this ? Will the US be so grace as to self sacrafice for the benefits of Iraqis ? Or is there hidden agenda ?

Maybe u can tell ur statement to anyone who has lost their family members due to the "liberation".

Ramius

That's hardly an argument.
Why don't you take you pacifism to the families of the hundreds of thousands of killeds by the Saddam regime?

Sure the war killed people, but far less then the regime.

Real arguments against the war are lack of planning for post-invasion, as well as using lies as method to gather public support. The number of casualties, both civilian and military, are very small compared to any occupation in history. Sure it'a a disgrace to have civilian casualtie, but it's not like nobody died under Saddam.