{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
原先發佈於：Sapphire
由Dustin編輯：
3/10/2013 11:08:59 PM
22
Iraq War
Was it justified?
The justification most people use is that Iraq was believed (without actual evidence) of having nuclear weapons, and the fact the government was run by an evil dictator.
However, there were no nuclear weapons and nor had they the capability to launch them at the US. The war brought Al-Qaeda into the country and created a civil war between the the two main religions (granted, that was more or less unpredictable).
Still, you can't go to war over a baseless threat. There simply was no evidence Iraq had any nuclear weapons other than Saddam Hussein's threats.
And of course evil dictators must always be brought down, but not by a full blown war. There are many other countries standing right now that have evil dictators, but you solve the issue through revolutions like the Arab Spring. If the people want it, then help them, but you can't force it onto them.
What's your opinion on the Iraq War?
EDIT: I forgot to mention that this war paid on credit - one of the most unintelligent decisions ever made in US history since Hoover's inaction during the Great Depression.
-
3 回覆Well, seeing as how the entire reason behind it was false, and it wasn't paid for, I can safely say it was a bad idea. Did we topple Saddam's regime? Yes. That was a benefit. But really, who are we to start taking out dictators of other countries?
-
2 回覆由Psycho編輯： 3/11/2013 8:48:35 PMDid Iraq ever pose a threat to America, no matter what state they were in at the time? Besides the false nuclear shit.
-
Well I asked my dad how Iraq was before America and he said it was quite good. Terrorism was low, economy was amazing and overall life was good for people. But Iraq had to loose Saddam he killed thousands of Kurds and his Uday -blam!- anyone he wanted. However it was better with Saddam for the majority. FYI: I am Iraqi, I have also been there every year for summer the past couple of years.
-
1 回覆1) Sapphire sucks 2) You're on a website filled with a bunch of angst filled teens who don't have the first idea about politics or war, what kind of answers do you expect?
-
2 回覆[quote]The war brought Al-Qaeda into the country[/quote]No it didn't. The war just gave them an opportunity to expand. The predecessor to AQI was called al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, started in the 1990's by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. When the war started, he pledged allegiance to UBL; thus creating al-Qaeda in Iraq. [quote]created a civil war [/quote]Inadvertently. The war, itself, didn't cause the "civil war". AQI and Iran started that. Grant it, they wouldn't have had the chance if the war never took place. Fun Fact: According to [i]Masters of Chaos[/i], US Special Forces and Peshmerga forces [b]did[/b] find a chemical weapon facility in the north. It was the only such place found throughout the war.
-
He says a dictator will be brought down, but also claims a full war is unnecessary. Dumb logic, which ignores the other variables involved anyway. To site the Arab spring as evidence that liberation from a first world nation is unnecessary is beyond moronic. The Iraqi people barely had the resources to fend off his loyalists, and some didn't even do that. It was justified in the sense that Saddam was not only a threat to his people but also neighboring states, hence what happened in the 90s. The only valid thing you said is that they didn't have WMDs.
-
1 回覆It was justified. Who cares if a bunch of sand niggers die, they're all a bunch of idiots anyways......
-
13 回覆I'd say so. You can't ignore the role it played in weakening extremist Islam as an international and global threat.
-
1 回覆Was it justified? Interesting question actually. After 9/11, Bush stated two things: One was that the United States would retaliate against our enemies, which we did by going into Afghanistan. That was justified. Retaliation was always fair game in world politics, so there was really no problem there. The second was that the United States would preemptively strike any country that was going to attack the United States. If you believe that the Bush actually thought there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, and if you believe Bush thought with all his heart they really were going to attack, then I'd say yes, it was justified. Personally though, I'm not sure whether or not he really did think there were WMD there or not. I haven't drawn a conclusion on that.
-
3 回覆Don't worry man, your savior Obama who is totally liberal and anti-war is soon going to be able to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists on U.S. soil. So the war will be taken over here. If you democrats were anti-war before, you're going to be pretty upset that your idol is killing citizens over here. Oh wait, you guys will support Obama no matter what, you'll be anti-war one day, but once shit like this happens you're going to be all over war.
-
Let's see: 4,500 American soldiers dead, unknown number of American contractors 30,000 American soldiers with missing limbs, brain damage, etc 100,000 to 1 million Iraqi dead 850 billion USD on the credit card, plus interest that will take us well over 1 trillion Iraq's closest ally? Now it's Iran. They both have Shiite governments now (before Saddam was secular with ties to Sunni) No WMD No nuclear programs No links to terrorism, let alone 9/11 distracted us from catching Bin Laden, which Obama eventually refocused on Um, no, it was not worth it, and Bush and his neo con gang should be held on charges of war crimes. It was a total unlawful invasion based on cooked up phony intelligence.
-
2 回覆Iraq had over a hundred accelerators whose only purpose was to accelerate particles and breed uranium. There was [i]some[/i] merit to the concerns and threats.
-
2 回覆
-
1 回覆We shouldn't have invaded either countries. We should have used Special Forces and airstrikes against Al-Qaeda. Not making farmers shoot at us in an unconquerable valley in Afghanistan.
-
由Diplomat編輯： 3/10/2013 11:04:57 PM[quote]There simply was no evidence Iraq had any nuclear weapons other than Saddam Hussein's threats.[/quote] Actually, almost every intelligence agency on earth had reason to believe Saddam had nukes. Unfortunately, they were wrong. Iraq will forever remain in U.S. history as the greatest intelligence failure, in my opinion. Anyways, I disagree'd with the invasion (in hindsight), but agree'd with the occupation. As for your comment on the Arab Spring, many analyst believe that the Arab Spring occurred in part due to the Iraq War :P Just saying
