I don't think the topic would be as controversial if everyone thought that the US was invading Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people, for the purpose of their liberation. The major reason given was the WMDs which weren't actually there, that objective was flawed from the start. If the war reason given was "Hussein you're evil and we are going to depose you for the good of the Iraqi people" then I think the war would be viewed differently. — Judaka

Yes. Likely there wouldn't have been ANY invasion. The US simply would not had gone into war. And note that then the US President was hinting Saddam having ties with Al Qaeda, which many, many people then deliriously believed in.

The other issue is that even though it's been years since the Iraq war, Iraq is still a mess and with that knowledge, it's difficult to call the war a success from the standpoint of helping the Iraqi people. If Iraq was now a peaceful, solid democracy that the people supported then more people would support the invasion. — Judaka

As US bases being attacked by Iran with artillery missiles in an retaliatory strike and the Iraqi Parliament having already made a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US forces, I would say this train wreck of a disaster is nowhere being over.

When

make the Iraqi people believe — Paul Edwards

is your idea of

a cunning plan for world liberation — Paul Edwards

then your interest is clearly not in freedom, but in forcing unbelievers to convert to your ideology, and killing however many people is required to impress them that this is efficacious. It's literally the oldest story in the book: convert or die. Just because you want something and don't care how many people die in order for you to get it, it doesn't make it just.

Once a decision had been made that Saddam needed to be removed for other reasons, the US did indeed take the exact action of merely liberating the Iraqi people, and not even forcing a bus timetable on them. — Paul Edwards

This is flatly false.

Iraq in reality became this sandbox for politically appointed and usually inept Republicans (chosen because of political ties and not experience) with Paul Bremer micromanaging everything in Iraq at the crucial stage. The "de-baathification" of Iraqi legal system went to quite extreme lengths by Americans rewriting traffic laws etc. You have to look at what the CPA actually did.

Would it have been somebody else than Paul Bremer and with a clear focus using the lessons learned from the Balkans, it might have been better. Had there been the troops that, again based on learned experience from the Balkans (or anywhere else for that matter), were needed at start it might have been better. But of course not it wasn't! Rumsfeld had these hallucinations of a cheap, quick war and the commanding US general coming out with realistic troop levels (levels which were met only years after) was sacked. And while the intervention into Yugoslavia and the following rebuilding was done by a Democrat administration and Republicans didn't do nation building... it was obvious that the Republicans ended up with their non-nation building nation building with Bremer and Coalition Provisional Authority.

then your interest is clearly not in freedom, but in forcing unbelievers to convert to your ideology

My ideology is freedom as I define it. ie living under a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government. And democracy is the *only* system of government that is unforced, which is what I supported setting up in Iraq.

My ideology is freedom as I define it — Paul Edwards

Which is killing people until they accept your politics. Fascism, essentially.

I'll need something specific to be able to contest the claim, and it's far from obvious. Ending the Iraqi holocaust (including institutional rape) is probably the most just war in the history of the world, and if Just War Theory fails to spell that out then the theory needs to be adjusted. — Paul Edwards

As I said, you're not here for debate but for confirmation of your own believes. Boring.

Which is killing people until they accept your politics. Fascism, essentially.

No, my policy for Iraq (and other countries) at this stage in world history is to install democracy and let the winners of democratic elections kill people who take up arms against the democratic government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is something everyone should be able to get behind.

It is Saddam who was killing people who didn't accept his politics. But that didn't faze you for some reason.

No, my policy for Iraq (and other countries) at this stage in world history is to install democracy — Paul Edwards

Our politics. And to do so by killing as many people as it takes.

No, my policy for Iraq (and other countries) at this stage in world history is to install democracy — Paul Edwards

Our politics. And to do so by killing as many people as it takes. — Kenosha Kid

Even philosophically this is illogical: Let's have foreigners come to your country and install democracy. Sounds like an application that you can have someone come and install for you.

(Perhaps we should gather a huge UN force and send it into the US to install social cohesion into the US. Seems to be in need of installing.)

Perhaps we should gather a huge UN force and send it into the US to install social cohesion into the US. — ssu

:rofl:

Worse, the US did not display insight into how to remove a mostly hated dictator without collapsing the whole society into chaos — Bitter Crank

Tangential, here. But it seems to me that the removal of dictators always results in matters becoming worse, at least for a while and usually a long while. I am sure there are examples where removing dictators worked for the good but I cannot think of one. Can you?

I am sure there are examples where removing dictators worked for the good but I cannot think of one. — tim wood

Hitler, which I guess makes Hitler a hero... since he removed Hitler. (With apologies to Jimmy Carr.)

i. I have spent an enormous amount of effort, starting in 2002,

You'll never explain the Iraq invasion,. It was a family feud for the Bushes against Israels most capable opponents supported by a pathetic British PM who wanted to bolster his importance. There is no explanation for human perfidy and foul play, If we put such people in charge then we get what we deserve.

Tony seems to be having great success bringing peace to the Middle East. ;)

Perhaps we should gather a huge UN force and send it into the US to install social cohesion into the US.

I rather liked Trumps idea of a wall, We could all contribute and extend it around the whole place.

o, my policy for Iraq (and other countries) at this stage in world history is to install democracy and let the winners of democratic elections kill people who take up arms against the democratic government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is something everyone should be able to get behind.


Thank the Lord you're not in charge. Such hubris and condescension is rare outside of the White House.

let the winners of democratic elections kill people who take up arms against the democratic government

Isn't this the policy of all countries already?

I rather liked Trumps idea of a wall, We could all contribute and extend it around the whole place. — FrancisRay

Maybe a dome..?

I am sure there are examples where removing dictators worked for the good but I cannot think of one. Can you? — tim wood

Two modern examples come to mind:

Vietnamese invasion and ouster of the Khmer rouge in Cambodia. Even if it took time before the Red Khmers gave up (and Pol Pot died). The Vietnamese did leave Cambodia after ten years.



Then there's Tanzania, which got enough when Idi Amin's Uganda had the fabulous idea of attacking it. Not only Tanzania repelled the Ugandan attack, but fully mobilized it's forces and launched an assault which made Amin and his army flee from Uganda even with air support from Ghaddafi. Of course Uganda has been restless afterwards, but not as many have died as during Amin. And it surely has not the fault of Tanzania.

Tangential, here. But it seems to me that the removal of dictators always results in matters becoming worse, at least for a while and usually a long while. I am sure there are examples where removing dictators worked for the good but I cannot think of one. Can you?

What was wrong with the toppling of Panama by the US? The fact that Iraq wasn't as straightforward as Panama is part of the reason why we needed to set up democracy in Iraq as part of the response to 9/11. We need to understand why Iraq isn't identical to Panama and (eventually) do something to (culturally) change Iraq so that it is no different from say Denmark. It should be a normal willing NATO ally preferably. Once Iraq is done it will be a template for the rest of the Middle East, again, as a response to 9/11. 9/11 requires us to fix every individual on the planet, not just the governments.

Our politics. And to do so by killing as many people as it takes. — Kenosha Kid

While it doesn't matter how many people Saddam killed?

And how many more people need to die in car accidents in the US before you start campaigning for private car travel to be banned there?

9/11 requires us to fix every individual on the planet, — Paul Edwards

And we can start with the people on this forum (as a response to 9/11).

You'll never explain the Iraq invasion,. It was a family feud for the Bushes

Millions upon millions of people supported the Iraq invasion, including me. Why don't you simply ASK (not TELL) them (or ask me!) what their motive was? Even if you assume that Bush is some sort of alien space bat who hates countries that begin with the letter "I", what difference does that make? Millions upon millions of people (including me) got THEIR policy implemented.

Whereas if YOUR policy (or the policy of the Australian Labor Party) had been implemented, millions of Iraqis would still be enslaved.

let the winners of democratic elections kill people who take up arms against the democratic government
— Paul Edwards

Isn't this this unofficial policy of all countries already? — magritte

No, the official policy of dictatorships is that the dictator will kill anyone who takes up arms against him. Surely you can see the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Or does that call for another assumption?

Even philosophically this is illogical: Let's have foreigners come to your country and install democracy. It's like an application that you can have someone install to you.

What's illogical about that? It was done with great success in Panama. If Australia had a military coup and the US came to Australia to dislodge the dictator, Australia would be a great success story too. If you think Iraq wasn't a success story (with 300+ political parties and higher voter turnout than the US), that just means we need to be there to respond to 9/11 (the response to 9/11 requires the whole world to be converted into clones of Denmark/Taiwan/Australia).

does that call for another assumption? — Paul Edwards

Precisely. You can eliminate many objections by defining your terms and making more assumptions explicit. For example, you would want to rule out Russia, with elected leadership, making war against Australia on ideological grounds.

fails to spell that out then the theory needs to be adjusted.
— Paul Edwards

As I said, you're not here for debate but for confirmation of your own believes. Boring. — Benkei

We can debate whether Just War Theory needs to be updated or not. Or do you have a dogmatic belief that it is perfect in its current form and there is no possibility of it being changed?

That would actually be an interesting discussion. Again, Iraq had the strongest possible case. There was a holocaust in progress (institutionalized rape and tongue chopping) and the invaders intended to simply set up a democracy and leave, which is exactly what they did.

Precisely. You can eliminate many objections by defining your terms and making more assumptions explicit.

Yes, that is what I am here for. Thankyou.

For example, you would want to rule out Russia, with elected leadership, making war against Australia on ideological grounds.

If Australia had a cruel dictator that was raping my daughter, I would rather take my chances with the Russian democracy. Note that in recent Russian history, Russia withdrew its troops from Eastern Europe and the Baltics without being defeated in battle. That should count for something.

Once a decision had been made that Saddam needed to be removed for other reasons, the US did indeed take the exact action of merely liberating the Iraqi people, and not even forcing a bus timetable on them.
— Paul Edwards

This is flatly false.

Iraq in reality became this sandbox for politically appointed and usually inept Republicans (chosen because of political ties and not experience) were with Paul Bremer micromanaging everything in Iraq at the crucial stage. The "de-baathification" of Iraqi legal system went to quite extreme lengths by Americans rewriting traffic laws etc. — ssu

Yes, for one single year the American occupation force was micromanaging everything which is what an occupation force is required to do. But then they transitioned to Iraqi self-rule, and the Iraqis were free to change anything at all they wanted, including those traffic laws. The Iraqis were not required to do a single thing by the US. Nor were they required to pay back the cost of the liberation. It was a gift from God. It was the purest form a war can be. Replace a holocaust with a democracy. Not a step wrong (policy-wise, anyway - there were individual Americans who broke the law and if caught were charged and jailed).

and the Iraqi Parliament having already made a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US forces, I would say this train wreck of a disaster is nowhere being over. — ssu

This is actually a good sign, not a train wreck. The Iraqi politicians know they are free to say whatever they want about the US. And the Iraqi people are free to say whatever they want too.

Under Saddam they couldn't do that. They would have their tongue cut out. It was Saddam that was a train wreck.

What's illogical about that? — Paul Edwards

Because democracy has to come from the society itself. The own domestic elite of a country have to be for democracy. The struggle for power has to happen at the election booth and the result has to be accepted by all. Foreign military might won't do it.

Iraq was a far cry of this. Once Obama pulled the troops back, what was the consequence? A despotic Shia Prime Minister that fired all the Sunnis in the government and in the end the already destroyed Al Qaeda came back after morphing into the Islamic State.

Iraq is a perfect example how nuts it is to assume that outsiders can just waltz in a turn things around in an region which has large inherent problems. (Especially Iraq being this idea of Westerners in the first place).

It was done with great success in Panama. — Paul Edwards

A country formed because Colombia wasn't going to sign the deal with the US due to the terms the Americans were giving them for the Panama Canal, so more convenient was to have some Panamians stage a revolt for 100 000$. Nicely agreed in an American hotel, even if Panamians celebrate their independence from Spain on November 28, 1821 now days.

If Australia had a military coup and the US came to Australia to dislodge the dictator, Australia would be a great success story too. — Paul Edwards

Simply because Australian know and cherish democracy and the Australian elite is totally willing to go with democracy. Every defeated country that bounced back after a lost war and occupation, be it Germany or Japan, had ample amount of social cohesion, belief and love in their country and honesty to understand that the previous totalitarian path lead to ruin and things should be changed.