NationStates Jolt Archive

Before first light on 20 March 2003 missiles rained down on Baghdad as the American-led invasion began. Saddam's regime was toppled but, three years on, the war still rages. About 35,000 Iraqis, 2,500 allied troops and 109 journalists are dead. The lives of millions have changed forever. Here are some of their stories.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1729086,00.html

These are the stories of a poet, a journalist's widow, a politician, a Iraqi mother, a civil servant, a British soldier, a American mother, and a US veteran.

It just makes you stop and think. These are the personaly stories that you don't normally see. For me it brings an additional, and more important, perception of Iraq.

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it? What would make it worth it?

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it? What would make it worth it?
It will take a lot of work to make it worth it. For all the democracy and freedom in the world, if you can't go out without being scared of a bomb going off, then that is not fair to the Iraqi people.

So it will take some serious commitment. And a lot more rebuilding funds. I still can't get over the fact that they actually put a limit on reconstruction money.

Two more, rather bleak, articles assessing the situation:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,405306,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,405164,00.html

has it really been three years? wow...

how many of his own people did saddam murder? for me, that was always the point of the invasion, and why i supported it: to remove a genocidal dictator from power. if we kill more people than he ever did in our struggle to remove him, then by sheer numbers alone its been in vain. possibly an odd way of looking at it, i know, but meh *shrugs*
i don't think we're anywhere near to killing as many as he did (his was in the hundereds-of-thousands IIRC)

the 'threat to british soil' and WMD nonsense were just political lies and spin - no i don't like being lied to but frankly i never saw those as legitimate reasons for invasion. i mean, France has WMD but you don't see america going invading them... oh wait... :eek: ;)

the oil issue and halliburton rebuilding contracts etc are just indicative of a corrupt regime in the white house. of course that particular issue is hardly 'good' but its not the main issue here imho

so overall, worth it still if it means saving people's lives in the long run.
how very utilitarian of me...

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it? What would make it worth it?

It wasn't worth it, but it'll have to be worth it.

It wasn't worth the thousands of people who died for the lies of WMD hidden in Iraq, nor for the lies that Iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda. I've no idea what they died for, but I know it wasn't for freedom, security, justice or any other of those values politicians kept throwing at the press and the public in order to justify this slaughter of innocents.

But it'll have to be worth it. It is absolutely paramount to finally sort out this mess, to get a new country, with a new government, with a peaceful society on the way. If the US fails to stabilise this country now, it won't have to go look for new enemies for decades to come.

It'll take about 5-7 more years to determine if it was worth it.

IF Iraq stabilizes, IF we get Osama & Zaharwi, IF the Muslim world takes a more active stance against Wahabism, IF more ME countries liberalize/democratize... then yes, it'll show that it was very much worth it, like the American Revolution or WW2 was worth it (from an Allied POV).

If we get 2 of those, then we can say it was worth it, but the cost was too high to repeat. Just like the West defending South Korea was.

If none of that happens, it was not worth it ala Viet Nam or the persuit of Pancho Villa.

To me, it seems like it could have been worth it.

Troops were being welcomed by the Iraqis who were greatful for them toppling . Predominately Sunni areas were welcoming Shia refugees when they fled Fallujah when it was assaulted by US troops. Artists were forming groups to display their art to to bring that art to school children. Politicians were actively engaging in the democratic process. Troops, despite taking loses, saw that what they were doing was worth it as they were greeted by Iraqis.

Nearly everyone thought that the invasion was worth it. So how did the disgruntled few manage to so completely turn things around?

PM: Saddam was president for 24 years. The coalition claimed that around 300,000 people were buried in mass graves between 83 and 91. For his total presidency this would amount to 12,500 people a year, for the 8 year period it would amount to 37,500. So even if you go with the smaller figure it has just been worth it. But only 40 such graves have ever been found and in 2005 the BBC reported that only 30,000 people had been killed. In which case the invasion is nowhere near worth it.

Before first light on 20 March 2003 missiles rained down on Baghdad as the American-led invasion began. Saddam's regime was toppled but, three years on, the war still rages. About 35,000 Iraqis, 2,500 allied troops and 109 journalists are dead. The lives of millions have changed forever. Here are some of their stories.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1729086,00.html

These are the stories of a poet, a journalist's widow, a politician, a Iraqi mother, a civil servant, a British soldier, a American mother, and a US veteran.

It just makes you stop and think. These are the personaly stories that you don't normally see. For me it brings an additional, and more important, perception of Iraq.

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it? What would make it worth it?

This is a letter written to Bill Clinton by Bush's cronies in 1998! A sign of things to come?

1998 letter to Bill Clinton 5 years before Iraq war (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)

has it really been three years? wow...

how many of his own people did saddam murder? for me, that was always the point of the invasion, and why i supported it: to remove a genocidal dictator from power. if we kill more people than he ever did in our struggle to remove him, then by sheer numbers alone its been in vain. possibly an odd way of looking at it, i know, but meh *shrugs*
i don't think we're anywhere near to killing as many as he did (his was in the hundereds-of-thousands IIRC)

I guess it is how you count bodies. More civilians have died per year under the allies than died per year under Saddam. They didn't all die at the hands of the allies, but then there were no IED's under Saddam so the allies become indirectly responsibility for them also. Then there is the question of who gets killed. Under Saddam treasoners, criminals, their families and associates were killed. Under the allies, civilians are killed at random.

So how do we count who is a genocidal dictator and who controls the chaos.

Can we make it "worth it"? Let's hope so. Right now the odds seem against it. On the other hand Vietnam seems to be far better off after the Allies pulled out than they ever were with them controling the fate of their nation.

It certainly wasn’t worth it and never will be.
The neo-cons neo-imperial ambitions will doom this whole country before the end of the next few decades, mark my words.

No, it was most definitely not worth it. It was an inexcusable, unjust, immoral, and illegal war of aggression aimed not at the freedom but at the subjugation of Iraq.

No, it was most definitely not worth it. It was an inexcusable, unjust, immoral, and illegal war of aggression aimed not at the freedom but at the subjugation of Iraq.
You’d be dead on if you answer this question correctly. For what reason was Iraq subjugated?

You’d be dead on if you answer this question correctly. For what reason was Iraq subjugated?

Reasons, not "reason."

Firstly, the US Government likes to maintain sufficient intimidation in the world. Bombing disobedient countries to shreds, then imposing our own puppet-state, shows potentially disobedient leaders what to expect from their non-servility. This one has backfired this time around.

Secondly, oil, of course. The US invaded Iraq, and not some other country ruled by some other dictator, because of its oil wealth. The US would not have invaded if Iraq's major export had been rabbits. I find it surprising that anyone would deny this, frankly.

Thirdly, it was supposed to help the US maintain its general domination of the Middle East, by eliminating one hostile regime and cowing other hostile ones. Control of the Middle East has been a major US objective since at least 1950, and this is a continuation of that.

Reasons, not "reason."

Firstly, the US Government likes to maintain sufficient intimidation in the world. Bombing disobedient countries to shreds, then imposing our own puppet-state, shows potentially disobedient leaders what to expect from their non-servility. This one has backfired this time around.

Secondly, oil, of course. The US invaded Iraq, and not some other country ruled by some other dictator, because of its oil wealth. The US would not have invaded if Iraq's major export had been rabbits. I find it surprising that anyone would deny this, frankly.

Thirdly, it was supposed to help the US maintain its general domination of the Middle East, by eliminating one hostile regime and cowing other hostile ones. Control of the Middle East has been a major US objective since at least 1950, and this is a continuation of that.
Ooh, so close. All those things you just listed are secondary.

The main reason for reason for invasion truly was to spread “democracy,” but not in the sense most would think to use that term. Creating governments that are favorable to the US in other countries is one of the top priorities of the neo-cons, but not for the pragmatic reasons that you so eloquently stated.

Neo-con organizations have explicitly stated that they seek to create a nation where people are devoted to the state. One of the best ways to do this is marry society with the military, to glorify those “brave” troops who travel to exotic lands to bring “democracy” to the “barbarians” who just don’t know any better.

What the neo-cons failed to consider, blinded by their ideology as they were, was that nations may not accept a government thrust upon them by a foreign invading power. They fail to see that it is not the end of World War II when the defeated nations had almost no other choice but to accept US occupation and intervention, for their own sake.

Ideology, not profit or even imperialist ambitions, is the fuel of modern war.

You’d be dead on if you answer this question correctly. For what reason was Iraq subjugated?

Try this on for size

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/top-100/2005/defense_revenue.html (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/top-100/2005/defense_revenue.html)

has it really been three years? wow...

how many of his own people did saddam murder? for me, that was always the point of the invasion, and why i supported it: to remove a genocidal dictator from power. if we kill more people than he ever did in our struggle to remove him, then by sheer numbers alone its been in vain. possibly an odd way of looking at it, i know, but meh *shrugs*
i don't think we're anywhere near to killing as many as he did (his was in the hundereds-of-thousands IIRC)

the 'threat to british soil' and WMD nonsense were just political lies and spin - no i don't like being lied to but frankly i never saw those as legitimate reasons for invasion. i mean, France has WMD but you don't see america going invading them... oh wait... :eek: ;)

the oil issue and halliburton rebuilding contracts etc are just indicative of a corrupt regime in the white house. of course that particular issue is hardly 'good' but its not the main issue here imho

so overall, worth it still if it means saving people's lives in the long run.
how very utilitarian of me...
Saddam killed none of his own people silly.

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it?

Depends majorly on which POV you subscribe to.

1. If it's PNAC, it was worth it.

2. If it's the "getting rid of Saddam and having a democracy in Iraq and later on peace in ME" - there is a long way to go.

3. If it's the purely a "War on terror" perspective- it was not worth it. Would have been better off pursuing fleeing taliban and bin Laden into Pakistan, instead of diverting resources and attention and getting bogged down in Iraq.


What would make it worth it?

If it's 1, then everything is fine. Iraq is a captive market, bases in prime location etc etc

If it's 2, then probably involving other world powers like France, Germany, India etc under some UN banner of sorts would help in taking the sting of "American occupiers" theme from the insurgents. Increased manpower would also help in sealing borders and preventing foreign jihadis from pouring in as it is happening now and the experienced troops like the Indian troops can probably bring in valuable strengths in pacifying the lawless areas.

Just my thoughts.

Before first light on 20 March 2003 missiles rained down on Baghdad as the American-led invasion began. Saddam's regime was toppled but, three years on, the war still rages. About 35,000 Iraqis, 2,500 allied troops and 109 journalists are dead. The lives of millions have changed forever. Here are some of their stories.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1729086,00.html

These are the stories of a poet, a journalist's widow, a politician, a Iraqi mother, a civil servant, a British soldier, a American mother, and a US veteran.

It just makes you stop and think. These are the personaly stories that you don't normally see. For me it brings an additional, and more important, perception of Iraq.

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could it have been worth it? Can it be worth it? Will it be worth it? What would make it worth it?

Those are very poignant stories.

It'll be years, perhaps decades, before we know if it was worth it or not and by then it could be difficult to draw a straight line to the toppling of Saddam.

This will be one for the historians to answer in the future.

Those are very poignant stories.I know. Not many people seem to be responding to them though, just the questions I tacked on the end of the OP. I kinda wish I hadn't put them there now.They're distracting from the main point of the OP.

I know. Not many people seem to be responding to them though, just the questions I tacked on the end of the OP. I kinda wish I hadn't put them there now.They're distracting from the main point of the OP.

You could edit them off friend- but then maybe they help to keep the thread alive. Sadly some readers don't follow the links.

ps: I like your viewpoint- would appreciate your input into 9/11 thread.

Was it worth it?

It's not over yet, so that's indeterminate.

Is it worth it?

So far, the incompetent intelligence and execution would say no.

Could it have been worth it?

Hell yes. If it were sold on grounds beyond the WMDs and the war had been executed properly.

Can it be worth it?

It may still be salvagable, but it gets harder everyday.
Will it be worth it?


What would make it worth it?