So was the US morally wrong in invading Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dogbone, Jun 24, 2007.

  1. dogbone macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6233926.stm

    Not even the most avid Bush supporter would deny that Iraq is currently a cock up on a massive scale. And there have been many individual tragedies. Maybe the motives for invasion were not as pure as the driven snow. All understood.

    Nevertheless, when one reads about a couple of hundred thousand Kurds, gassed to death, surely the question of whether the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, is somewhat difficult to answer.

    Of course the post planning mistakes have made things much worse than they needed to be but would the world have been better off turning a blind eye to mass murder on this scale?

    I don't have an easy answer to my own question.
     
  2. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #2
    Dear sir, you forgot to place a question mark at the end of your thread title.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Yes. The US, the UK, Australia and the rest should not have invaded Iraq, nor deposed Hussein, nor had him executed, despite his responsibility for thousands of deaths. It was counter to the rules they themselves had established and signed up to, it was justified on the basis of a lie, and, to cap it all, the plan, such as it was, was executed so poorly that the people for whose benefit it was supposedly carried out are now incomparably worse off.
     
  4. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #4
    Perhaps, subconsciously, it was intended as a statement. Perhaps, thus, he CAN answer his own question.
     
  5. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #5
    I can assure you that unlike skunk, I am not able to balance this out in my head and make a judgment call. When I learn of 200,000 Kurds gassed or otherwise murdered and I realise that this must only be an indication to the real extent of the horror rather than the full picture I understand that these moral arguments are best left for others more qualified, to decide.

    But certainly after the Nazi horror, large civillian populations being systematically gassed must cause at least some disquiet in ones mind.

    Further I might add that the current violence is sectarian based and is mainly Shia on Sunni, rather than the military using sophisticated weapons on a defenseless minority.
     
  6. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
    Perhaps a better question should be "Were the USA and UK morally wrong in turning a blind eye to their own arms companies supplying a brutal dictator with chemical weapons and other military hardware?"

    Those Kurds and tens of thousands of Iranians died thanks partly to Western governmental inaction. Saddam was built up by the international arms industry into a military power because our governments were upset about the deposing of the Shah and what that could mean to the wider Middle East. When he became a threat himself, they used arms bought from the same companies to put him back into his place. Profitable business war, isn't it?

    From that point on, Saddam was no threat to the Kurds whatsoever and couldn't afford a WMD program. His only weapon against his enemies was bluffing about an arsenal he didn't actually possess.

    I also think it would be interesting to see what the reaction of the US and UK governments would be to a UN demand allowing unlimited access to their military installations. I suspect they'd behave similarly to how Saddam did. Does this mean our governments are evil and we should expect to be invaded?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    The alleged offences took place in 1988. This was just after the Iran-Iraq war which was waged with US support and claimed 1,000,000 lives, and was followed by GW1, which claimed 100,000 lives. Pol Pot caused 3,000,000 deaths, Mao and Stalin up to 30,000,000 each, the Korean War up to 3,500,000 and so on. How selective are you going to get?
     
  8. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #8
    How selective are you going to get?

    about what?
     
  9. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #9
    if he was so bad in '88 why wasn't he finished off in 1991 during a justified war ?
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    About which instances of mass murder you are going to get outraged about and which you are going to ignore. You seem to be content to stick with your outrage at an Iraqi instance from 1988, while turning a blind eye to the thousands being slaughtered right now and in other times and other places.
     
  11. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #11
    Probably one of the great mysteries of the 20th century.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Probably one of the better policy decisions of GHWBush.
     
  13. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #13
    Not much of a mystery at all. Most other countries in the world don't think much of the idea of the US invading countries, toppling their governments, and installing new regimes. And the older GB wasn't a unilateralist.
     
  14. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #14
    Interesting 'points' from you and skunk. So if Germany didn't declare war on it's neighbours and just concentrated on exterminating all the Jews, Gypsys and Happy People, do you think the rest of the World should have ignored them and let them get on with running their own country as they see fit?
     
  15. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #15
    Did Invading Kuwait, not merit intervention?
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    The rest of the world ignored them even after they had declared war on their neighbours, actually, nor was Britain's (or the US's) declaration of war anything to do with the Jews. What was your point again?
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Personally, I think the case for that war was cooked up, Hussein was given the green light or at least an ambiguous message by the US, and the regime in Kuwait was hardly worth the candle; but at least a case was made and accepted under international law.
     
  18. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #18
    From which post?
     
  19. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #19
    Of course it was, and the WTC was blown up by the CIA as well.
     
  20. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #20
    Almost as ridiculous as people saying Saddam had something to do with it, right?
     
  21. TequilaBoobs macrumors 6502a

    TequilaBoobs

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    #21
    i think the word 'morally' has a religious connotation, kinda like the 'sanctity' of marriage.

    i think the US invaded iraq for economic stability in that region. the benefits of the invasion arent as worthy of attention as is all the resulting deaths, but we have secured a better future in terms of the USA's dependence on oil.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    You are being sillier than usual.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    From the post I quoted, in which you introduced utterly irrelevant references to WW2.
     
  24. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #24
    Yes, but surprisingly when skunk joins the thread the topic tends to drift off what it is supposed to be. Funny that.

    Seeing as you have visited the thread I can assume (maybe incorrectly) that you had a passing interest in the topic. If you did I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.
     
  25. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    May I refer you to post #6? I think that states my position quite clearly.
     

Share This Page