We can argue about reasons for the war in Iraq, and which politicians did or did not support attacking Iraq, with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, until we are blue in the face.

However, the exceptional performance of the troops in accomplishing their initial mission, taking Baghdad, and capturing Saddam Hussein makes the carpet bombing idea a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? What strategic advantage would carpet bombing have provided?

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
What strategic advantage would carpet bombing have provided?

Same as it did when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain

Come to that, what strategic advantage did taking Baghdad and capturing Saddam Hussein provide? (Has Baghdad been 'taken' yet?) Strategically, it was a little like Napoleon taking Moscow, wasn't it?

I don't agree that we can argue the reasons for invading Iraq with 20/20 hindsight. With 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that there was no good reason for invading Iraq. There isn't much of an argument at all.

Maybe the best argument supporters of the invasion have is that it seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, with the information available then. But even that argument is flimsy, given how the information available was deliberately manipulated, sexed-up and fitted to the facts, and given how many who were in a good position to make a judgement - like the UN inspectors - asked for more time, at the time.

McCain has said, apparently, that the Iraq war is "just". Clinton has said it was a mistake to trust Bush's judgement on the war (is she stopping short of saying the war itself was a mistake?). Obama has said that the war 'was conceptually flawed from the start' (I guess that's the fancy-pants intellectual way of saying it was a mistake). A candidate of the left would be talking about apologies and reparations, wouldn't he or she? Is there no left-wing candidate in the contest either?

How has the "Age Issue" evolved into a discussion about Iraq? LOL, I feel like I'm at home with friends getting off subject again.

Hey, NNN, I don't know how things are where you live, but in the USA attorneys would jump all over an "apology" and you would never see the end of lawsuits.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
You were serious? It wouldn't hurt your feelings to kill about thirty million people? And your justification for doing so; profit skimming and kickbacks in oil deals, a non-existent threat and a lame "why did I pick Combo 1 - well sure I could have starved instead" argument that wouldn't justify a choice in a fast food restaurant.

Seriously, why do you still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq? It's a war we're talking about - you ought to have a compelling reason for starting a war.

Hmmm...thirty million people huh...

Let me ask you this then. When Bill Clinton was President, should the U.S. have sent troops to go help oust the "Butcher of the Balkans"??? To oust a leader whose policy was enforcing ethnic cleansing... And what vital interests did the United States have in this??? And what was to say this situation could very well have escalated into a war of its own...

We know Saddam Hussein had his own brand of ethnic cleansing as well. How many more mass graves are yet to be found. Yet the world stood idly by on this situation. Human rights did not seem to be a concern here. And why is that??? So if we did carpet bomb Iraq and kill thirty million people, would it have really mattered??? Or is it OK to simply allow them to live in torture under a crooked dictator instead...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by coldfuse:
How has the "Age Issue" evolved into a discussion about Iraq? LOL, I feel like I'm at home with friends getting off subject again.QUOTE]

Sometimes a comment grows legs of its own.

Quote by L.R.
"How many more mass graves are yet to be found.?"

They're probably in the same place as the weapons of mass destruction.

"They're probably in the same place as the weapons of mass destruction."

Oh, no! That means we'll never find them!

Are the mass graves and the ethnic cleansing of the 80's and 90's supposed to be a justification for the invasion in 2003? What lives did the invasion save from ethnic cleansing? None. In fact, in the wake of the invasion came new waves of ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced Iraqis.

As has been pointed out many times before, Hussein's mass murders were carried out after the Iran/Iraq war and after the first Gulf war. Yes, the world stood idly by (actually the US helped him in the first instance) then. That doesn't justify invasion twenty years and ten years later.

If I asked why the US entered World War II, for example, we wouldn't get illogical argument and hot air about financial scams, mistaken intelligence or decades-old atrocities the US itself was implicated in. It's clear there was no good reason for invading Iraq. It seems, rather, to have been part of a lunatic neo-con plan to reshape the Middle East by force, and its main justification, it seems, was that it was going to be a cake-walk; with flowers being thrown and a new capitalist dynamo being established, nobody was going to be bothered asking about justifications. Oops.

quote:

So if we did carpet bomb Iraq and kill thirty million people, would it have really mattered???

It's still difficult to work out whether or not you mean this seriously. I assume you can't be serious.

quote:

Or is it OK to simply allow them to live in torture under a crooked dictator instead...

That's the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma .

"Are the mass graves and the ethnic cleansing of the 80's and 90's supposed to be a justification for the invasion in 2003?"

Wouldn't it have been easier not to sell him the chemicals to make the gas that he used? All it would have taken would have been for Reagan to not OK the sale. But he didn't.

quote:

When Bill Clinton was President, should the U.S. have sent troops...

I guess this thread wouldn't be complete without mention of Slick Willy. We could debate the pros and cons of military intervention in the former Yugoslavia, or Rwanda. We'd at least be talking about intervening or not around the time of the crisis - when it was happening or seemed likely - not ten years later.

quote:

...allow them to live in torture...

You're not implying that the invasion ended torture in Iraq, are you?