Interesting. We are in broad agreement on this thread yet you have posted an attack on me which has no relation to the thread. You did this once before JSP1488.

This is something else again. And you are not going to do it again.

Jack The Lad - I get so sick of people saying things like 'it's a typical leftie way to end arguments.'

Yeah, well, then I may as well just say vague generalisations about entire political spectrums are a 'typical rightie' response.

There is no typical right or left wing response. There's good arguments made from each side, and bad ones.
You're just as guilty of displaying a bad one. If you have to resort to the ole 'ooh! Lefties always argue badly!' as you're argument, you're hardly doing any better now are you?

In relation to Iraq... Easytimes, as far as I can tell, you're saying it was okay for the US to use a fake reason like 9-11 as a pretext (in order to placate those opposed to war) to invade the country, in order to replace a dictator, because the people would be better off in the end.

There's several things flawed in this. Firstly, you've just said it's okay to lie to the public to launch a war. Tell me - even if we agreed that the Iraq war was justified, what's to stop more of these pretexts (and lets face it, pretext is just a softer word than lie) being used for unjust wars? Are those pretexts okay as well?

Secondly - the number of deaths that have occurred as a result of this war are all out of proportion - as bad as Saddam was, he hadn't killed this many. This is effectively cutting the Iraqi people's noses to spite Saddam's face.

Thirdly - I don't see you acknowledging the fact that the US are responsible for putting Saddam there in the first place.

Cont'd

4. - If you study a bit of history, you find that pretty much every dictator the US has installed has either been toppled or wound up being as bad as the rest (i.e. Saddam). Given that the US clearly haven't had a plan for reconstruction, what likelihood is there that it will work this time, when all other attempts have failed?

5 - Why is it that Saddam is worth pursuing in violation of the UN, but on an issue like Darfur or Burma, where the only opponents are the Chinese and Russian governments and public support is entirely in favour of an intervention, the US does nothing? Why, if not oil?
I suppose you can argue Saddam was a threat, but those WMDs never existed in the first place.

6 - You didn't address the fact that Iran is now more of a threat, seeing as the Saddam counterweight is gone.

7 - As far as the terrorism angle goes, Al Qaeda now has access to Iraq when they never did before.

After looking at all of the above... how can you conclude this war was anything other than a dumb idea?

All your entire case boils down to is - "Saddam was bad, so we shoulda got him."

Yeah, well, there's worse ones out there which could have been removed without such catastrophic consequence.

Your arguments are totally lacking in substance or reasoning.

Foxy – We are not just training but also providing security! Our rolls have changed over the course of the deployment.

Bugsy – Its silly to say the GW invaded Iraq for the oil! Explain it to me ok! Saddam was quite happy to sell oil to the west! Today we pay for the oil from Iraq just like we did when Saddam was around! People say GW has money tied up in oil companies! So it would be in his best interest to keep Iraqi oil out of the market so that it drives oil prices up!

Its al hypothetical whether de-bathing Iraq was a good or bad thing. You get rid of one problem which causes another or you just leave it and watch it potentially fester!

Opinioned2 – Since you are all wise and all knowing what was the best course of action to take in Iraq then? You are full of stories of how bad things are but empty of any ideas to make it better.

TRTL In order

1. I believe in being proactive in this world! Sitting on your hands for too long has caused tens of millions of innocent people in this world to die! Look at the last 100 years and see what procrastination or lack action has done!
2. This point is totally wrong read this which I posted before http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm if you go all the way from 1990 – 2000 they think that 350 000 children under 5 died. 350 000 does not include anybody over the age of 5!
3. Why acknowledge that? As I have said we had bigger fish to fry! The USSR was active in the region and at the time we needed somebody or anybody who would be “loyal” to the west and not the soviets. Didn’t Saddam get in through a coup?

4. I will give you that! When it comes to dictators its either bad or badest! I have never heard of a good dictator but there are bad and then there are very bad ones! They are commencing reconstruction now what are you expecting to see?
5. I feel I keep repeating myself when answering your questions! Remember us discussing triggers! We need a good trigger to go in there like a direct attack on the west! If this does not happen it will be next to impossible to get anybody to act because of the vile left who will rampage in the streets claiming those who are acting to help the Burmese/Sudanese are blood thirsty war mongers who should try more “talking” instead of military action! (while the talk fests goes on thousands more die)
6. This statement is like saying the Russians are more of threat now because the Nazis have been defeated! Lets tackle one problem at a time! Today Saddam tomorrow Iran.
7. What do you mean more access to Iraq? The funny thing with al qaeda is that now anybody setting off a bomb anywhere is from al qaeda. If they did not use al qaedas name they would use another. I doubt osama has much of a say from his cave with the running of the group now.

Now I have a question for you. If we had not gone into Iraq what action do you think we should have taken? Just left Saddam there to stew the Iraqi people some more?

No matter what way you went into Iraq I can hardly see Saddam and his henchmen stepping down quietly and handing power to a democratic government! Saddam and all his men have committed many crimes and thus made walking away from Iraqi impossible. So the only way to get rid of him would have been a bloody revolution which would probably dragged in many other nations in the middle east

You ask what we should have done?

Hokay, here's a few ideas.

1) Reverse the process of propping up the Saudi regime, which in turn diverts funding to Saudi madrassas which actually DO fund religious extremism in nations throughout the world, contributing far more to an unstable world situation. (Saddam, vile dictator as he was, qas quite secular. He was no supporter of Islamist terror, and this war has been a distraction).

That being said, military action in Saudi Arabia, particularly around Mecca, would be stupidity in the extreme, but then again, so was the Iraq invasion.

2) Keep our eyes on the ball. Afghanistan is quite probably the world's largest heroin provider as well as being a haven for actual Islamist militants - as it stands it is an unstable cocktail of warlords.
Instead of launching two half-arsed invasions, how about doing one thing at a time, and doing it right for a change?

3) Saddam was a dictator, but believe it or not there were much better things we could do. On the scale of violence and repression, Sudan tops Iraq and would have had far more enthusiastic support from all but Russia and China.

Saddam was put there by the US. Go back and study your history. Here's a primer. Rumsfeld looks awfully chummy with Saddam there.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Ultimately, regardless of what the US does they can't restructure these countries at whim.

You speak as if the US can 'fix' Iraq. Democracy cannot exist along tribal lines. When you have the Sunni/Shia division, coupled with some negative attitudes toward the US, how can you possibly create a government there? All that can happen is ongoing carnage. A constant war, and warlords vying for power.

Why is it, that there is so much emphasis on the mideast if not for oil? Surely the dictators throughout Africa and South America would be warranting attention otherwise? Why just the focus on the mideast?

I'm not saying it's all about the oil, but to deny it was one of the motivating factors, if not the foremost, is being rather naive.