The invasion of Iraq was about abush needing a war to boost his poll numbers for reelection. His approval was cratering and he needed a distraction. It worked too, just barely


Expect the US to attack someone in 2019 as well

We arguing about Iraq now? I don't have much opinions on Iraq but I think we should've never went there or left about 3-4 years later. Depends on how you put it.

"I agree with 95% of what you say Yanik, but I have to disagree with you and Prado on the Iraq war. It was oil, nothing else."
"There was no conclusive proof of the weapons"

Yes there absolutely were weapons in Iraq. Saddam Hussein hid them to avoid them being found by a UN investigation that had been running years before Bush got involved that had sought to figure out how many Saddam had because it was common knowledge he had some. There had been a number of disarmament reports to the UN that had failed to make the progress they intended. Bush and Blair got involved because of those unaccounted for weapons. Then the CIA did their own investigation which was declassified in 2015 that verified there were absolutely chemical weapon rockets and warheads hidden in Iraq.

"It doesn't make sense that Iraq was singled out in a world where you have places like North Korea and Syria"

North Korea and Syria involve greater diplomatic questions involving China and Russia, respectively, to be able to touch those countries than there was with Iraq in 2003.

"His approval was cratering"

No it wasn't. It took much bigger bits during the war than most any time before it.

If he had them, why didn't he use them when we invaded? Let's assume that we knew 100% the weapons were there though. Why was it a problem? Aren't there dozens of countries with big bad scary weapons? Why was it necessary to remove them from Iraq? Because Saddam would use them against his own people and threaten to use them against other countries? Well, that couldn't be it, because he was allowed to stay in power after the shit he pulled in the 90s. You wouldn't let someone stay in power when you had the chance to remove them if you believed they would use chemical weapons in war or against innocents given the chance. What changed between 1991 and 2003?

I see what you're saying with North Korea and Syria, and it is a valid point. Personally, I would follow the same course of action across all 3 nations, whether that be to free the people of the country, or to leave their affairs in their own hands, China and Russia or no China and Russia. But I'm a risk taker and would be betting Russia and China wouldn't want to start a nuclear war by getting involved whereas others are more risk averse.

"If he had them, why didn't he use them when we invaded?"

Because the process of hiding them inadvertently ruined them.

What changed between 1991 and 2003 is that Saddam stopped playing the West's game, so the powers that be in the West magically realized all of these terrible things that they so innocently missed before when they were best friends with him.

Even with the weapons there, I agree we shouldn't have gone in, especially with just two major countries actually on board with it. There was a lot of bad about the Iraq War, but I do believe that the weapons were the central reason to go to Iraq.

"What changed between 1991 and 2003?"

The UN investigation was 98-99, and the reports about the lack of progress on disarmament were in late 2002-mid 2003.

@TrPrado: "Because the process of hiding them inadvertently ruined them."

Do you seriously believe that?

He only used chemical weapons pre-1991 though, both on Iraqi civilians and Iran. He was actually much better behaved between the two wars, it just doesn't make sense to keep him there and decide he needs to be removed later on just because he still had the weapons even though he wasn't using them. It's not like if he had gotten rid of the weapons he wouldn't have been abusing the people of Iraq in other ways. That's like saying the people of Notth Korea would be well off if Kim would just get rid of his nukes. They'd be in the same position! I don't know what you mean by "playing the west's game", bo.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was political. The no-fly zone had been working well (protecting the Kurds and Shia) and while inspections were a never-ending cat and mouse game, there was no nuclear program being hidden -- just chemical. In light of 9/11, W chose to fix the criticism against his father for not going into Baghdad back in 1991. That's all. Also, another war would be good for Cheney's interests. Throw in some selective "intelligence" and you're ready to go. Remember "Curveball" Chalabi feeding local "intel"? And the yellow cake uranium bullshit they got Colin Powell to talk about?

"Do you seriously believe that?"

Yes. They deteriorated considerably in their storage. Eventually they ended up corroding to the point of being unable to use.

"there was no nuclear program being hidden -- just chemical."

The term "weapons of mass destruction" has included chemical weapons for a long time.

Again, I did say Bush overestimated the threat and that even with his justification we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.

do people just selectively ignore how Saddam Hussein was a fascistic ruler of what is essentially his crime family, a man who said his biggest mistake was going into Kuwait THEN trying to obtain a nuclear bomb, and that he should have done it the other way around. the Dawa Killings, the Kurdish Fayli being expelled and killed, the Al-Anfal chemical weapon attacks killing tens of thousands, up to the invasion of Kuwait: and these are only SOME of his crimes up to 1990.

after THAT, we should have gone in.

And as for questions on North Korea, they've been holding their people essentially hostage, along with south korea and japan and anyone they can shoot missiles at.

are we also going forget how the Iraq war made Gaddafi capitulate, and renounce possession of their WMDs in December of 2003? a stockpile we actually had underestimated?

and a few months back, into 2016 there was an attack on a Marine base that my brother heard about, not a major event but they reported finding traces of mustard gas. in fact this has not been an uncommon report, as chemical and biological weapons have been cropping up all over Syria, and there are many senior government officials who believe that in lack of the property infrastructure to create such a mass of weaponry, it's very likely that these are left over from the Saddam Regime.


i understand people here don't like war. nobody should ever enjoy war, i certainly don't. but when you look at Saddam, who was assassinating people in 1999, and mocking the USA, and still holding up a regime using torture, rape and murder on a daily basis... our occupation of Iraq may have been poorly planned, and we should have been more prepared, but taking out Saddam is 100% the right call in my book.

"...but taking out Saddam is 100% the right call in my book."

Then we should be taking out about half of the tinpot dictators the Trump is cozying up to.

@Jeff Kuta

trust me i'm no fan of Trump's foreign interests, and if a leader of another nation commits a genocide... it's not winning me over.

@JY: How do you square that position with the standard non-interventionist (or isolationist) libertarian line of thinking? When do moral interests outweigh national ones? Cowboy diplomacy has been proven a failure.

What weapons? There were no weapons. A few remnants from the weapons the US sold him to use on his own citizens. That was it.

And of course the million dead from the invasion are nothing to worry about. After all, they're brown people, so who cares, amirite?

"after THAT, we should have gone in."

That's what I'm getting at. Most of his atrocities were before 1991. So, when we had all of our troops deployed in the middle east with all of our allies from the UN, why did we not depose him then and there when it would not have required much more extra effort? Why leave him be and suddenly change our minds 12 years later after no new significant developments? I just find giving kickbacks to their campaign donors in the form of oil shortages a much more believable story than having a sudden change of heart for the plight of the Iraqi people (but ONLY the Iraqi people and none of the people from the dozens of other countries ruled by inhumane dictators).

"And as for questions on North Korea, they've been holding their people essentially hostage, along with south korea and japan and anyone they can shoot missiles at."

This is a moot point because that's what we believed the situation to be in 2003, yet we went into anyway.

"are we also going forget how the Iraq war made Gaddafi capitulate, and renounce possession of their WMDs in December of 2003? a stockpile we actually had underestimated?"

That was never the intended goal and shouldn't be included in considering the motivations of those who voted for the war.

"but taking out Saddam is 100% the right call in my book."

I'm not saying it wasn't (but it definitely wasn't in the way it happened as you mentioned), I'm just skeptical of the motivations behind our leaders actions in doing so because of the timing and the fact that we targeted solely Iraq for a mission like this and not any of the other countless nations that have the same kind of ruthless leader oppressing their people.

"What weapons? There were no weapons. A few remnants from the weapons the US sold him to use on his own citizens. That was it."

The same weapons the UN asked him to disarm but he kept hiding information from them to keep some.

@JK

well... i'm not really a libertarian. i agree with many of their principles, but the basis of non-aggression isolationism doesn't seem practical to me.

@Ogion

so we should let fascists rain supreme and commit genocides because otherwise we might kill some people... interesting stance. is ANY war acceptable in your view?

Which he did, as was reported by every intelligence agency but the US, which was lying out its ass. Which was supported when the US, in control of the entire country, found precisely zero weapons, and only a few rusting barrels of goo.

@Manwe

well if you believe the Iraq war was for oil, you still have to reconcile with the fact that the haliburton stock price and all the intervention didn't come until well into the occupation. furthermore, it's not as if Saddam has been doing NOTHING when we invaded him. he was constantly flaunting the fact that he could kill his own citizenry with chemical weapons and we wouldn't do anything. we also knew then (and has since confirmed now) that he was trying to pursue nuclear arms. frankly the idea that our timing was bad is a legitimate critique of the Bush regime's motive, but it also fails to accept the overall good that was accomplished by removing Saddam.

i'm not saying everything has been fine and dandy in the middle east since, but the major players who have been killing people have been ISIS, who people forget had been around since '98, and only grew to power once we LEFT Iraq.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf

special look at page 4, for a direct source on them holding up inspectors for WMDs.

Keep in mind, that any rationale for invading Iraq applies quite a bit more forcefully to military action against the U.S.

@JY: Iraq was more or less minding its own business within its borders during Dubya's rush to war. Yeah, they were a terrible regime and committed many domestic atrocities, but they did not aggress against a neighboring country. They were not upsetting international order. That's why the United States got almost zero support, and that's why we're still paying for it today.

@Ogion

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

this AND the recent announcements by Syria that they have WMDs and chemical weapons is interesting, given their primary lack of infrastructure, and also little reporting on major arms trade of that sort... unless you look back to the Saddam era.

where was this extreme skepticism when you saw the Buzzfeed dossier that said Russian hookers peed on trump? i remember you mocking Trump and talking about all the ways it was probably true.

@JK

they were not upsetting international order? openly denying UN inspectors, claiming they had nuclear weapons, and were still killing dissidents internally. they were practically a rogue state, and any given day could have gone back after Iran or Kuwait. in fact, they had been primarily involved in blitz maneuvers in their original invasions, and so there's little comfort in saying they weren't currently at war, and so we should wait until they try to massacre another nation before we finally step in