Pelican

I have been thinking exactly the same thing.

Graham's post is nothing more than an elaborate piece of sophistry in Neo-con speak for:

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

Pelican, there was a good reason that Saddam wasn't removed after Kuwait - different administration with different ideas. They believed, as I believed, that removing him would create more problems than leaving him there.

Then came Kosovo and another "illegal" operation to remove a government actually appeared to work. That opened the possibility of moving on Iraq, and 9/11 provided the spark.

The reason no-one has moved on those other regimes, but moved on Iraq, is because it was possible to move on Iraq, and not possible to move on the others. Saddam had no friends left. Of course resource security would have been another part of the equation, but to say it was the only part is wrong. Hussein was happy to sell oil to anyone.

What I find interesting about these posts is that many of you aren't prepared to deal with the world as it is - you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the war. Well, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely.

Graham,
I think Saddam shaould have been removed after Kuwiat, but that is history. Why people keep referring to the 'war' in Iraq is beyond me. The war ended when Saddam's statue came down, remember the euphoria of the Iraqi people. Since then the coalition forces have been used to stop the stupid Iraqis from killing each other over religous differences. Each faction trying to be top of the pecking order. They have been too stupid to take the opportunity that was available to them.

I supported the removal of Saddam's regime but I wonder if it was worth it for the cost of allied lives. The Iraqis don't appear to appreciate their freedom from oppression.

I would support UN entry to remove Magarbe but the UN is too weak to do anything worthwhile. Meanwhile thousands die.

I disagree Graham.

The internal political climate and potential difficulties in Iraq was the same post-Kuwait as it was when the US invaded Iraq.

In such a politically fragmented and divided nation like Iraq deposing Saddam was never going to be easy either post-Kuwait or later.

Some argue that the only road to peace in Iraq without Saddam was to divide Iraq into three areas - Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish. So the question of why did the US make the decision to invade Iraq when it did still stands.

The fact is the premise of invasion was flawed even when there was mounting evidence that Saddam had ceased research and development into WMDs in 1991 (according to the CIA report).

This does not mean that Saddam had no intentions of resuming WMD manufacture once sanctions were lifted but one does not start a war based on what someone might do.

Graham

Your sarcasm detracts from what little cred you have on this topic:

"... you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the warWell, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely."

You are making assumptions about what I believe - because I disagree with the methods used, you assume that I prefer that the situation in Iraq was acceptable. It never was. Nor are the situations Pelican mentioned, anymore than the 'democracy' in Zimbabwe is acceptable. Please enlighten your OLO readers on how money could be made by invading these blighted nations.

Your head is still in the sand regarding the thousands of innocent lives lost in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Go tell an Iraqi mother who's lost her husband and children, go tell the people who have had limbs blown off.

Tell them that $79 billion is worth it all.

Fractelle, I don't the the $79 billion is worth it, when you phrase it in those terms.

But living in a stable country, after decades of oppression and genocide? Well, maybe that is worth it, and that's what a stable revenue base for the foreseeable future can buy.
- Maybe it's worth it - Maybe.
I'm undecided, and I still don't think a stable Iraq actually is on the horizon.

But I do believe we all need to consider at what point it actually 'would' become worth it. Hypothetically speaking, if out of the bloodshed in Iraq came a place where people could live their lives peacefully and pursue happiness, couldn't a case be made that it has been a worthwhile result?

Consider what living another decade or two under Saddam would be like.

I agree that many of the motivations for invading Iraq weren't mentioned and yes, oil played a very large part. That being said, while I still would never condone launching a war for oil, we do need to accept that our current economic reality is that the world market is based around oil, and leaving much of that power in the hands of Saddam effectively meant that Saddam had leverage over America. Whilst I don't generally trust American intervention, even attacking for oil has its practical reasons, and I wouldn't have liked to have seen Saddam's influence increase either.

So while I am opposed, I think Graham's right in saying we need to consider the world as it is - I don't actually think a stable Iraq is achievable, but if I am wrong, then I would honestly need to sit down and think about the situation, and the results for the people no longer living under a dictatorship as well as how many more may have faced ethnic cleansing were he still in power.