Was the Iraq War justified?

[Blehm 98]

It doesn't take a brain to know the difference between Iran and Iraq, no matter how dumb some of the things bush does are, he does have a brain

 

And besides, I don't even know the name of the current dictator or Iran, yet i have known of Sadam Hussein for a very long time

[Accounting Troll]

The supreme power in Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khameni. The BBC has some information on him here.

 

Curiously, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini (who died in 1989) is a liberal who has spoken out in favour of a democratic Iraq and is opposed to Iranian efforts to create a hardline Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq. He went into hiding to avoid being assassinated by the Iranian Military Intelligence.

[sir-roosio]

Anyone read this?

 

you hear that boys and girls? it's the sound of shields being banged on the horizon!

[FullAuto]

Anyone else think this is hypocrisy of the highest order? The US, owner of one of the world's biggest nuclear arsenals, telling another country it shouldn't develop nuclear weapons?

You really should think before you open your mouth, lads.

Israel has nukes. So does another dozen countries. And before anyone says "But their country isn't ruled by a nutter." in my estimation, Bush IS a madman. So if the US can have them, anyone is entitled to.

[Accounting Troll]

It seems particularly ironic when Japan has just commemorated the 60th anniversary of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the US tries to get Israel to bomb the Iranian nuclear facility, just like they did to Iraq back in (I think) the late 1970s.

 

Given that Iran is a card carrying member of Bush's 'Axis of Evil', it is probable that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons to discourage the US from launching a preemptive invasion. It will also increase Iran's prestige in the region, which is already high because nobody in the Middle East thinks that America can win in Iraq, and people tend to want to support the winning team.

[Ivory]

havent read the topic- i appologise.

 

One question) Is war EVER justified, or is it a vicious circle that started long ago and is going to keep going untill we wipe ourselves,along with the rest of life on earth, out entierly?

 

 

 

(ps-dito full auto!)

[Accounting Troll]

I suppose it depends on the circumstances. A nation is entitled to defend itself, even if it means that nation has to launch the first attack in a pre-emptive strike. A good example of this is the Six Day War when Israel launched a preemptive strike against the air forces of its enemies, which effectively won the war at a stroke. The Arabs have never stopped complaining about the Israeli action, although they tend to forget how Egypt, Syria and Jordan were planning to invade Israel in the next couple of days anyway. Israel's only chance of victory in a war that was inevitable whatever they did was to gamble everything on a preemptive strike.

 

Going back to the Iranian nuclear situation, the EU and Russia are worried about the Iranian actions, so it isn't simply a case of the US throwing its weight around.

[sir-roosio]

Thev hypocrisy started a long time ago when the Nuclear super powers (france, China, UK, America, Russia) signed the non-proliferation treaty, which basically said 'we have nuclear weapons, we will keep our nuclear weapons, no one else can buy our nuclear weapons, no one else can make they're own, but if you want ot enrich uranium for power stations, we wont stop you.'

 

Pakistan didn't sign the non proliferation treaty, so they developed they're own weapons unhindered, however iran is currently signed up. They claim their porgram is for the purpose of creating electricity, no one else believes them.

[Hobbes]

Thev hypocrisy started a long time ago when the Nuclear super powers (france, China, UK, America, Russia) signed the non-proliferation treaty, which basically said 'we have nuclear weapons, we will keep our nuclear weapons, no one else can buy our nuclear weapons, no one else can make they're own, but if you want ot enrich uranium for power stations, we wont stop you.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The treaty also says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

 

Treaties set responsabilities for each part. When the nuclear powers decide that they are going to keep their own nukes, they are excusing themselves from their duties while expecting others to stick to what's been agreed.

[FullAuto]

The treaty also says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

 

And everyone has stuck to that have they? No, didn't think so. Everyone disarmed? No again. Cessation of the nuclear arms race in sight....no.

Hmm. I've spotted a flaw in the treaty.

The reality is, the big kids are getting annoyed because the little kids are growing up and taking the big kids' toys. To continue the child analogy, the West is now chucking it's toys right out of the pram, because they're surprised that other countries are following their example and *GASP* developing nuclear weapons. Who could of imagined it?

Retards.

[sir-roosio]

And everyone has stuck to that have they?  No, didn't think so.  Everyone disarmed?  No again.  Cessation of the nuclear arms race in sight....no.

Hmm.  I've spotted a flaw in the treaty.

The reality is, the big kids are getting annoyed because the little kids are growing up and taking the big kids' toys.  To continue the child analogy, the West is now chucking it's toys right out of the pram, because they're surprised that other countries are following their example and *GASP* developing nuclear weapons.  Who could of imagined it?

Retards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You didn't really continue the analogy, cos originally you used 'toys' as a representation of nuclear weapons, then in the second instance you used 'toys' in a purely metaphorical sense to help describe a baby who has a strop on. . .but I see your point

 

Nobody is willing to start disarmament untill their 'old enemies' commence disarmament, and they are, of course, waiting for their 'old enemies' to commence disarmament. They, of course, are waiting for. . . . "and so on ad infinitum"

 

And then of course there's the 'enfants terrible' who have developed nuclear weapons and not signed up to the treaty, who would want disarm while they still have weapons??? But then the countries who see themselves as emerging super powers want to be big players on the world stage, so they, of course, will want to develop their own nuclear weapons.

 

I hope a bigcomet comes along and the only way to stop it is to fire every nuclear weapon on the planet at it at once, and then everyone will HAVE to co-operate and then all the warheads will bne gone at once. . . .but that aint gonna happen!

[FullAuto]

I hope a bigcomet comes along and the only way to stop it is to fire every nuclear weapon on the planet at it at once, and then everyone will HAVE to co-operate and then all the warheads will bne gone at once. . . .but that aint gonna happen!

 

We'd all bloody die.

"You fire yours."

"No, after you."

"Well, I'm not firing until you do."

"Is that a threat?"

"Look, just fire your nukes at the bloody asteroid."

"Don't tell me what to do! This alliance is OVER" *Storms off crying*

[Accounting Troll]

The one thing that prevented the Cold War from developing into a nuclear war was the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Neither the Soviet Union nor the US and its satellites wanted a nuclear exchange because both knew that neither side could hope to win.

 

However, Iran is dominated by the fundamentalist hardliners, and is actually known to be supporting fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. If we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons then are you so sure they won't give some to the fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere? Most of a nuclear missile is made up of the propulsion systems. You can fit a warhead into a suitcase, and if you happen to have people who don't mind dying for their cause, you can easily smuggle a nuclear bomb into an enemy city.

[Hobbes]

However, Iran is dominated by the fundamentalist hardliners, and is actually known to be supporting fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.  If we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons then are you so sure they won't give some to the fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere?  Most of a nuclear missile is made up of the propulsion systems.  You can fit a warhead into a suitcase, and if you happen to have people who don't mind dying for their cause, you can easily smuggle a nuclear bomb into an enemy city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That argument has almost the same validity of the claim that Saddam would supply WMDs to terrorists. If Iran has nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they supply them to fundamentalist terrorists? There's more reasons for them not to take that course of action:

1) The origin of the bombs cannot be hidden if there was a nuclear explosion. Through testing it would be possible to trace the origin of the bomb, and it would risk retaliation.

2) Iran supports fundamentalist terrorists but it has never given them WMDs like chemical or biological weapons (which it has in abundance)

3) Iran is a Shia dominated country. For the Sunnis, and especially for Saudi Arabia, the Shiites are close to heretics. There are also Shias on Iraq and Saudi Arabia: on Iraq they now control the country while on Saudi Arabia they are prosecuted. Giving nukes to both makes no sense because of the ancient rivalry between Arabs and Persians. The weapons could well be used against Iran later on the future so why take the risk?

[Accounting Troll]

I really hope you're right and that I'm worrying about nothing on this.

 

I shall keep on worrying though as the US and UK aren't doing a terribly good job of understanding the current situation from the point of view of the countries in the Middle East, and it's possible that we could unwittingly put Iran in a situation where it feels that it has nothing to lose by supplying nuclear weapons to terrorists. We currently represent a greater threat to the Iranian government than the Sunni and Wahabi (sp?) muslims.

 

One example of how we messed up was with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein. We showed off their bodies and Bush & Blair crowed about how it showed that Saddam was gone for good. However many devout muslims felt that their heroic last stand was a redemption for their violence and repression before the invasion, and they were appalled at our lack of respect for the dead. By that time, the bulk of the insurgents were Iraqi nationalists and religious fuindamentalists - the Saddam loyalists were already a spent force. We were even wrong about Uday and Qusay being Saddam's sucessors; he knew that they were violent playboys and he intended to pass control of Iraq over to another son - Ali Hussein, who is currently about 18 years old.

[FullAuto]

One example of how we messed up was with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein. We showed off their bodies and Bush & Blair crowed about how it showed that Saddam was gone for good.

 

Though this has nothing to do with respecting another culture, and everything to do with being a bad winner. It's common sense not to display the bodies of the dead like that, no matter what culture you are. They were brave enough to stand and fight, which is a lot braver than most. However, we had to rub it in, because we're more than ready to get down to the level of terrorists.

[Hobbes]

I really hope you're right and that I'm worrying about nothing on this.

 

I shall keep on worrying though as the US and UK aren't doing a terribly good job of understanding the current situation from the point of view of the countries in the Middle East, and it's possible that we could unwittingly put Iran in a situation where it feels that it has nothing to lose by supplying nuclear weapons to terrorists.  We currently represent a greater threat to the Iranian government than the Sunni and Wahabi (sp?) muslims.

 

One example of how we messed up was with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein.  We showed off their bodies and Bush & Blair crowed about how it showed that Saddam was gone for good.  However many devout muslims felt that their heroic last stand was a redemption for their violence and repression before the invasion, and they were appalled at our lack of respect for the dead.  By that time, the bulk of the insurgents were Iraqi nationalists and religious fuindamentalists - the Saddam loyalists were already a spent force.  We were even wrong about Uday and Qusay being Saddam's sucessors; he knew that they were violent playboys and he intended to pass control of Iraq over to another son - Ali Hussein, who is currently about 18 years old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The points I brought before have logic but they also show some optimism ("things might not be so bad") but I also worry a lot, because everything isn't that simple. You are right on the situation of putting Iran in a position where it might have nothing to lose by supplying nuclear weapons to terrorists. I strongly suspect that it is going that way, from every since the invasion: from that moment on the stakes of power on the Middle East were shuffled and everyone wants to get the better cards.

For the regime in Iran it is simply a matter of survival: a democratic Iraq is a threat in many ways to the Iranian regime. Seeing as if Iran is already surrounded by regimes friendly to the Americans (Afeganistan, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.) it would make them more surrounded. But of all possible outcomes for Iraq that seems one of the most unlikely at the moment, and the alternatives would look much better for Iran.

The US Army being on Iraq actually works for their favor because those troops can't be employed against Iran. If the country splinters apart, then they will have even more influence on the Shia areas, because those would be isolated against the Sunni faction and the Sunni regimes around them. The same if the Shias get to power or even if the Sunnis (or the Baath's) get back to power.

The nightmare of Iran giving terrorists nuclear weapons is plausible but there's much more than it behind the intention of fighting fundamentalist fanatics. As long as there's a just motive (read: spread democracy and freedom) any war can be justified, even if the reason turns out later to be bogus or greatly exaggerated. But some things don't change, namely the fact that this is all about who gets control of the Middle East.

[Accounting Troll]

Looks like international tensions are increasing over Iran. Bush is threatening military force against Iran and Gerhard Schroeder has responded by critisising Bush's sabre rattling. You can read the story here. Am I the only one feeling a sense of deja vu?

 

The US might not have the capability to invade and occupy Iran with its current commitments in Iraq, but a 'surgical strike' with cruise missiles is possible. However a unilateral attack on Iran would increase the rift between America and the European Union and would make America even more hated in the Middle East.

[FullAuto]

"Okay George, I bet you can only fit in one war this term."

"You're on, Daddy."

 

I'm sorry, but this is bloody stupid. Military intervention is a last resort? Really? Because how many countries has America bombed, in the last, oooh, fifty years? Twenty? Thirty? Forty? I'd hate to see the casualty figures if military intervention was their first resort.

I mean, let's be realistic here. Have all those bombings been for truth, justice, and the American way?

No.

Well, possibly for the latter.

This isn't about anything except retaining control of the ME.

[Fishfins]

Before I believe that the Iraq war was for liberation (that excuse only came into play when it was evident Iraq hadn't had WMDs for decades, I want to see the US lead another mishmash coalition to liberate Zimbabwe and Burma too. Maybe North Korea as well.

[Pete]

Yeah, they seem to have enough cannon fodder...

 

I mean, for the average soldier that gets out there and realises this isn't what they signed up for or expected, they must be thinking "wow, that army recruitment video was just full of Oscar-winning performances"

[FullAuto]

"Man, I can't believe war movies lied to me"

 

What worries me is this could turn into something nasty, countries going hither and yon and 'liberating' those poor oppressed peoples who just so happen to live on top of billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel.

Whoops, did I say that?

I meant 'oppressed peoples who are starved of democracy'.

[Hobbes]

Well it looks they've partially acknowledged the truth....

 

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

 

Despair, cynicism or a sense of opportunity? You decide.

[Pete]

That's a bit of a politically suicidal slip isn't it?

 

Remember everyone saying "So you're doing it for the oil George?" and him saying "Nope" and now saying... "Err... yep. We'd better keep an eye on it really whilst we just so happen to be there."

 

So... would we be surprised if a really big pipeline was being laid in secret (Assuming there.s not already one nearby)? Not really.

 

The world can live without oil for cars. Car manufacturers already have alternative solutions all planned out just in case someone bans petrol/diesel as a source for running cars anyway. They just haven't needed to build them yet.

[FullAuto]

I don't understand why they couldn't just be honest about it. Why dress it up?