Iraq War 2003

[Soviet Catalonia]

America and Britain invaded iraq in 2003 because they said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Kt was later found out that no such weapons existed. In other words a million lives wasted in vain.

However, like i said iraq was invaded by two countries that if you combi ed their weapons could destroy the world two hundred times.

So why was iraq invaded for having no nuclear weapoms when america and Britain did?

[Greater Raetia]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

[Baltenstein]

The OP´s sig and entry post lead me to the deduction that this is going to be one of NSG´s most balanced and moderate topics ever.

[Frank Zipper]

As oil runs out it becomes of more strategic value. I really find it hard to believe that the Iraq war was anything other than part of a strategy to ensure control of oil. It was done with utter ineptness, creating many problems.

[Alyakia]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

>implying we do not have a history of being basically ok with dictators if we like them enough, up to and including saddam hussein himself

[Chan Island]

Because America and Britain are generally thought of as responsible nations that won't use their nukes. In addition, they already have them as you pointed out, so invading them is an invitation to having your capital nuked.

Iraq's leader was Saddam Hussein- genocidal maniac who gassed his own people, ethnically cleaned millions, invaded other countries (Iran, Kuwait) and all round nasty man. Imagine such a leader with nukes? He'd probably have gone after his own people with them.

Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, because there were no nukes. The Iraqi nuclear program had to be slashed in response to sanctions. But if there had been nukes there, then it would have absolutely been a different ball game.

Pedantic bonus points: Iraq actually did have weapons of mass destruction as defined by the UN. He did have a large stockpile of chemical weapons... and he used them frequently. His cousin got the famous nickname "Chemical Ali". But yeah, that's a different topic.

[The Fire Nation Empire]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

You'll find that the real answer wasn't that. Hussein was actually well liked by his people, he kept the tribes from fighting and lawfully maintained his power. Though yes, he did use chlorine gas in war that in itself isn't justification enough since by the same token the US should be invaded for their love of cluster munitions on civilian targets. Iraq has large oil wells and the US wanted to pay very little for the oil which was already fairly priced so they invented a justification for war and the loyal idiots in the British government followed them in which is why our buses, tube trains and Glasgow airport were bombed.

[The Great Earth Kingdoms]

genocidal maniac who gassed his own people, ethnically cleaned millions, invaded other countries and all round nasty man.

Are you sure you're not confusing the man with Mr Silly Moustache Man, I mean Hitler.

[Mefpan]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

>implying we do not have a history of being basically ok with dictators if we like them enough, up to and including saddam hussein himself

No, no. Saddam was the Bush dynasty's punching bag for distracting public discontent.

Then George double-you broke him.

That aside, I'm sure there were many actual decent reasons to do away with Saddam Hussein, but none of those were the actual reason for the war. And the problem was shrugging and going "Mission accomplished" when the actually difficult part of the whole toppling dictators thing just began.

[Greater Raetia]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

You'll find that the real answer wasn't that. Hussein was actually well liked by his people, he kept the tribes from fighting and lawfully maintained his power. Though yes, he did use chlorine gas in war that in itself isn't justification enough since by the same token the US should be invaded for their love of cluster munitions on civilian targets. Iraq has large oil wells and the US wanted to pay very little for the oil which was already fairly priced so they invented a justification for war and the loyal idiots in the British government followed them in which is why our buses, tube trains and Glasgow airport were bombed.

I love it how you say "though yes, he did use weapons of infinite cruelty, never mind they're banned, and OK he may have been a bit genocidal towards Kurds but hey! He maintained power!"

[Chan Island]

You'll find that the real answer wasn't that. Hussein was actually well liked by his people, he kept the tribes from fighting and lawfully maintained his power. Though yes, he did use chlorine gas in war that in itself isn't justification enough since by the same token the US should be invaded for their love of cluster munitions on civilian targets. Iraq has large oil wells and the US wanted to pay very little for the oil which was already fairly priced so they invented a justification for war and the loyal idiots in the British government followed them in which is why our buses, tube trains and Glasgow airport were bombed.

I love it how you say "though yes, he did use weapons of infinite cruelty, never mind they're banned, and OK he may have been a bit genocidal towards Kurds but hey! He maintained power!"

I know right?

"Yeah, he used chemical weapons against civilians, which is illegal according to the UN, but hey the US used cluster bombs and Saddam maintained his power so it's all good!"

[Kubra]

>implying we do not have a history of being basically ok with dictators if we like them enough, up to and including saddam hussein himself

No, no. Saddam was the Bush dynasty's punching bag for distracting public discontent.

Then George double-you broke him.

That aside, I'm sure there were many actual decent reasons to do away with Saddam Hussein, but none of those were the actual reason for the war. And the problem was shrugging and going "Mission accomplished" when the actually difficult part of the whole toppling dictators thing just began.

Bush Jr was pretty much the best loser out there
like shit he led one of the most disastrous wars in american history and still got a second term

[Kilobugya]

It was invaded because the US wanted to control Iraq's oil supplies. WMD, Saddam being a dictator, 9-11, ... were just lame excuses.

[Greater Raetia]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

Whether the USA and Britain are actual democracies is a matter of opinion.

If they aren't, what is?

[Greater Raetia]

If they aren't, what is?

None exist to my knowledge, but I wouldn't exactly call spying on your own citizens and slowly clamping down on their freedoms democratic. It may be slightly more democratic than a dictatorship but it certainly isn't a shining example either.

In my opinion, there has to be a balance between democracy and security, though this is only because there are dangerous states out there that aren't democratic. If there comes the day when all states are peaceful and democratic (at least like Western democracies), then spying as you say will become less and less needed and democracy will inevitably increase. Think of it as 'democracy-max'.

[Autumn Wind]

]

I love it how you say "though yes, he did use weapons of infinite cruelty, never mind they're banned, and OK he may have been a bit genocidal towards Kurds but hey! He maintained power!"

Interestingly, the Anfal campaign, where he used nerve gas against the Kurds, occurred in 1987, during the Reagan administration. I think the outrage over his use of chemical weapons wears a little thin when there wasn't much of it at the time he was actually using them.

[Vault 93]

If they aren't, what is?

None exist to my knowledge, but I wouldn't exactly call spying on your own citizens and slowly clamping down on their freedoms democratic. It may be slightly more democratic than a dictatorship but it certainly isn't a shining example either.

The definition of democracy is simply a government system where people have the right to vote. Tyranny of the majority is still a democratic system, provided the citizens (without intimidation or threats) elect authoritarian politicians (though saying the US is a tyranny of the majority is a far fetched claim at best).

[Greater Raetia]

In my opinion, there has to be a balance between democracy and security, though this is only because there are dangerous states out there that aren't democratic. If there comes the day when all states are peaceful and democratic (at least like Western democracies), then spying as you say will become less and less needed and democracy will inevitably increase. Think of it as 'democracy-max'.

No thanks, I don't agree with your opinion in the slightest. Privacy is much more valued over security any day, the government can keep their prying eyes out of my business. Fuck 'em.

Just look up the number of prevented terrorists attacks here in the UK and you might begin to understand.

[DBJ]

Um... Iraq was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator, while he USA and Britain are democracies...

>implying we do not have a history of being basically ok with dictators if we like them enough, up to and including saddam hussein himself

it's awesome that we got our shit together and finally did the right thing, right?

[Keyboard Warriors]

America and Britain invaded iraq in 2003 because they said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Kt was later found out that no such weapons existed. In other words a million lives wasted in vain.

However, like i said iraq was invaded by two countries that if you combi ed their weapons could destroy the world two hundred times.

So why was iraq invaded for having no nuclear weapoms when america and Britain did?

Obviously, that wasn't the real reason. Saddam at that point was a destabilizing force in the middle east which was working against the interests of the US and Europe, so they removed him.

Not that I'm the least bit sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Things would have been much simpler if they removed him in the first gulf war instead of giving him a reprieve. Surely his list of war crimes was long enough at that point to warrant his deposal.

[The 502nd SS]

We invaded partially due to WMDs- yes
Were they nukes- no
The WMDs we found were chemical, old weapons, but still chemical weapons. I'm on my phone right now so I can't get the CIA(?) report until later.

[Valaran]

The OP´s sig and entry post lead me to the deduction that this is going to be one of NSG´s most balanced and moderate topics ever.

tehee.

[Hurdegaryp]

The OP´s sig and entry post lead me to the deduction that this is going to be one of NSG´s most balanced and moderate topics ever.

A real middle of the road thread that will not lead to any heated discussion whatsoever.

[Novaja Zemlja]

Because ''muh world police''.

What are we to discuss in the first place? If it was justifiable that the US invaded Iraq?

[Saiwania]

Even if the motivation for invading Iraq was over oil- supposing it were true, this pursuit was still unsuccessful. The US got no oil from Iraq and since then, the market for oil has plummeted in price which has negated the entire point.