*Ledi*

I'm doing a project on the war in Iraq (finally), and I was interested in what other people thought about the whole war overall. I want this to be more of an interview kind of thing, than an actual discussion (though that's fine too).

My one and only question would be: Do you think it was a good idea to send troops to/start a war with Iraq?

Whether you answered "Yes" or "No," could you please list the reasons why you think it was or wasn't a good idea?

Personal stories are always welcome, as well.

PS: I didn't post this in the "War on Terror" thread because it's kind of different, and I didn't want it to get lost in the discussion about things/conflicts other than Iraq.

vc318

Hi Ledi. I was just about to close this but now that I see it's for a homework, I'll leave it open.

In response to your question, I think Bush wanted a reason to go over to Iraq so that he could drag his greed with him. He wanted to find some excuse to put money in the pockets of the wealthy and he managed to do that by bringing the whole country down as well. It's a war with ABSOLUTELY no purpose. Sadly, we're now stuck with it since we owe other countries trillions of dollars now. In all, the reason we've gone to war is no longer for what it used to be.

TheAngel

No, I don't think it was a good idea for several reasons:

1. We were already fighting a war in Afghanistan, which is where we should have been and should have stayed in the first place. We didn't have the manpower or the means to fight wars on two fronts and potentially with other countries (North Korea, Iran) who were potentially more dangerous, at the same time.
2. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, or between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We were punishing a person who (while a terrible person) was completely unrelated to our initial goals.
3. The US needs to get out of the mode of "Bodyguard for the world". We didn't have any business going to Iraq if it wasn't related to 9/11, which was a hostile action, but if Hussein didn't have anything to do with it then we're simply an invading force.

UnsilentMajorty

No. I do not think starting a "war".... And it was an invasion, not a two-sided conflict for control of a specific political or geographic objective... With Iraq, was warranted. It was ill-conceived, poorly executed and has no end in sight. It has cost thousands of young American men and women their lives, and disfigured them both physical and mentally. It also cost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens their lives as well.

The one thing I feel you should emphasize in your paper is this is the first time in recent history where the U.S. committed an act of blatant aggression against another sovereign nation who did not attack the U.S., it's citizens, or interests. I am ashamed of this as an American, but I feel this is unfortunately the most important aspect that distinguishes this conflict from others we have fought in, or been a part of.

All of the details of why we invaded and the inept handling after Saddam Hussein was removed from power are relevant, but they aren't as important as the fact this was a blatant attack on a nation who did not attack the U.S., its citizens, or interests, here or abroad. It will be one more sad note in the presidency of George W. Bush, and will further give historians and history reason to argue he is one of the worst presidents of all time.

Pacey'sgirl

I think in the beginning it had to be done i mean we were so worried about terrorist and Sadam was not complying with the agreement. He was a threat as we knew it then....he ignored many warnings. But i think we have been there way way too long! Its way past time to get out!

4N6 DNA

I do not think that it was a good idea to send troops when we did.

I am not knowledgeable enough with the acts of war and the history of our countries to be able to fairly determine whether our intentions were justified. I don't know enough about our history with Iraq. But even I am not naive enough to continue with an effort if it has so obviously failed. Especially with lives on the line. Aside from proper intention, from deeming the war a necessity, there should have been careful consideration as to whether or not we had a capacity to carry out this enormous process of war. We should have been prepared to wage this war before we took the action.

It is not because of the politics that I do not think that we should have gone to war. It isn't even whether we were justified or not. It was whether we bit off more than we could chew, and I think that we did. The moment my boyfriend had to ask me for $1500 because he was not provided with a flak jacket was when the fear that we were unprepared became a reality to me. When he asked for batteries for his flashlight and water instead of personal effects in his care package, I knew that we were not prepared. This might be selfish of me, and I am sorry if it is but I didn't care about the big picture at the time. I didn't care that we had a name and a face to the terrorist attacks and we were close to catching him. It was the little picture that hit home and kept me up every night. I don't care what good excuse our country had to go to war and I don't care who lied where. I don't care that Iraq started it or that they deserved it. If we did not have the money, and we did not have the capability, and if we are unprepared for a retaliation we should not have followed through with one until we were. For me, it is that simple. My experience may be considered only to be a small fish in a large pond, but it still felt like drowning. Troops put their lives on the line trusting that they are being sent with good reason and with a good defense. The moment they were left unprotected and without a clear mission our country failed them and the mission. We should have pulled out earlier but we didn't. We should have pulled out when we realized we were not prepared but we didn't. And now the knot between our countries is so tight that even the one's who tied the knot in the first place can not undo it without completely cutting it. And that is what is going to happen as we pull out of this war, we will be cutting ties and not resolving them. Back to square one, possibly even a square in the negative numbers.

If it is just about the honor of our troops that we can not pull out of this, the moment we left them without basic necessities in a hostile country, we took that honor away along with their pride and purpose. If this is just about the honor of our country that we can not pull out of this, then it should be called upon us that we are a stubborn country that can not admit defeat and are unwilling to do the right thing just to save face. And I feel that that is much worse. With the situation we are in right now, our troops are taking the fall. Its not their fault that the war is not going as planned. To say they died for nothing would be an atrocity. Even if we do not agree with this war, we must still support the troops who thought they were fighting a justified war. They did what they were told and they put their faith and their entire life in the hands of their government even after it had failed them. Many people say that pulling out of this war is to surrender. That it somehow takes away troop honor. But nothing will ever be able to diminish that, not even if we admit we were wrong. Surrender is only relative, just like victory is.

Good luck Ledi on your paper, hopefully you can share some of it with us when it is completed.

UnsilentMajorty

Very well said.

You make an excellent point about how defeat is relative and it would be more of a dishonor to the troops to continue on this rudderless course than pull them out because more and more keep dying each and every day as a result of this poorly thought out and under-funded war in the process.

By the way, you can thank Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for sending our troops into battle without basic necessities like body armor and batteries. They thought this would be like running a corporation where those in cubicles have to "do more with less". These two should be held accountable for every human life they have killed... Not wasted, KILLED... But the reality is they won't be.

NYCity Boy

jess, i agree with you and i think you have some great thoughts. Sorry for what you had to go through! I like what you said about victory and surrender being relative

sunnykerr

As a Canadian, I would also point out that the Iraq war was a little distressing to those of us who consider ourselves allies of the United States because of the whole "unilateral aggression" angle.

International consultation felt very much like an attempt at giving this thing the facade of legitimacy. When the other world leaders didn't get on board fast enough, we were told that we were either with the United States are against them. Considering invasion was what awaited perceived enemies... even understanding the realities that made that possibility highly improbable... it felt like a slap in the face, not to mention a bit of a threat.

We all admire the principles that the United States have historically stood for: freedom of speech, of thought, of self-determination. And no one's saying that the country is perfect, or can be perfect, or even should be perfect. But it is strange when, having gone along with our ally into Afghanistan, we found ourselves rebuked for excersizing our freedom to not to go into Iraq.

Cristofle

Absolutely not. It was a neoconservative move- pre-emptive and unilateral. It opens us up to attacks of the same kind, weakens our standing around the world, and most importantly: we were lied to. There WERE no weapons of mass destruction, and I don't think Bush ever believed there were. Not to mention, the tendency of the Bush Administration and the MSM to underplay the fact that Iraq was NOT responsible for 9/11 really frustrates me. Now they've started hinting at Iran being tied to it, with things like the RNC "terrorist" video. It's led us down a very dangerous path of painting all Muslims with the same brush.

*Ledi*

Thank you for the replies! I really appreciate that you guys take the time to reply to threads like this.

I have now chosen the three main points that I'm going to write about in my paper:

Planning
- Not enough time was given to the UN investigators
- Faulty (or manipulated?) intelligence
- Poor (overall) planning, and no exit strategy (I will also include the failure to really support troops in combat - and I'll make sure to throw in quotes by Rumsfeld in there!)
- No WMD's
- Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda or 9/11

Consequences on our lives:
- More security everywhere; strict safety measures
- Economy is doomed
- Discrimination of Muslims/Islamophobia

Overall Safety:
- Loss of life: Iraqis, Americans, and other people of different nationalities
- Divided Iraq: Civil war within the country?
- Stronger Al-Qaeda; attention was taken away from the real terrorists/war on terror; energized extremists
- London & Madrid bombings

I'll basically use those three main points in my thesis; I'll argue that the Iraq was a horrible idea by explaining all the points I listed. I'm not sure if I'll be able to include all of them, but I'll try to work around it so that I can throw in most of the important ones. To be honest, I feel as though all those points are so important. It's depressing to think about how so many things have gone wrong with the war, and just how much of an influence it has had on everyone's life, whether they realize it or not.


Feel free to make any suggestions or comments!

sunnykerr

In "consequences on our lives," you might also want to adress the shoddy treatment of veterans when they come home. If you want. The lack of governmental support for their physical and emotional recovery. The fact that those who come home dead were never shown on TV, kept silent like some sort of dirty secret.

UnsilentMajorty

One last thing that might change the thesis of your paper, but that really sheds light on the real reason we invaded Iraq... Western oil companies like Cheveron and Exon were just recently granted exclusive oil contracts in the country. This is historic because western oil companies have not had accesss to Iraqi oil for over 40 years. You'll have to look up the actual details, but this pretty much puts the whole "war for oil" debate to rest, more or less.

As stated, this might change the thesis of your paper and might be too controversial, but I think it is important to acknowledge this very real fact because it pretty much states what the real mission was compared to the lies we and the troops were fed prior to the invasion.

*Ledi*

I actually put both of those things down when I was brainstorming. Under "Planning," I wrote, "Real reason behind the war?" I even remember mentioning that to my teacher, and telling him why I wanted to bring up that point (soldiers in Iraq protecting certain areas, instead of civilians...).

I might include both of them in my essay, because I think they are very important, too. There are so many things to talk about!

If you guys know of any good sites where I can find more information about the war (or the points I listed), please post them here. :-) I already have a bunch, but I wouldn't mind looking at other ones.

bad reputation

I know youve gathered all you need, but my answer was NO.

Plain and simple... stay out of other countries business.