This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the right decision.
Why did America invade Iraq in 2003?
Was the Iraqi war legitimate?
Was the decision to invade Iraq right?
TED Conversations
Sign In
To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).
Live Conversations
Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times:
Kareem Fahim
They needed Oil. Global dominance. Iraq is a strategic point to control that region.
Was the Iraqi war legitimate?
Hell No. Monsters who did acts of terrorism are 100% CIA made. (I hope I'm not breaching terms/conditions of TED). Whilst people who died in Iraq war had nothing to do with whole mess and neither generations who will live a miserable life thanks to this war....
Was the decision to invade Iraq right?
For those individuals it worked out quite right in the end. They are free breathing same air you and I.
PS: For me people who defend this war are no different than terrorists scum of human race. (leave apart sides / religion just read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War; and if you still support war something is really wrong with you)
Ciao!
Robert Winner 50+
Lejan . 30+
Robert Winner 50+
Just as a matter of interest .. why this subject. The response is known. Everyone will be an expert and state some non existant facts fed them by their favorite media both pro and con.
I refuse to be lead into this as sheeple to slaughter ... but inquiring minds want to know .... why Jessica price?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If they confected evidence to suit their objective, then probably not.
I personally think they had an objective in mind and then went looking for or created "evidence" to support these, rather than be led by the evidence. Saddam had nothing to do with 911, yet that was a message put out there.
It may have been illegitimate if you consider international law and UN sanctions as the appropriate authority.
Random Chance 30+
What? Their lies?
That is known as psychosis or being psychotic.
The sites soldiers searched for, found and revealed,
showed that clearly nothing had been going on
in these so-called WMD "plants or factories" for upwards of 13 years!
They, meaning Intel and their bosses, would have known this.
Not should have known this, but would have. They did.
They manufactured a phony story and put it into action against the wishes of America and the world.
It was/is all based upon lies and if they swear they really believed this,
then they are psychotic.
Why are they allowed to be in power, corporately, militarily, politically or financially?
They are true nut cases.
Barry Palmer 50+
The decision was the wrong decision for all the dead and all the maimed.
John Smith 30+
Probably (but few people know this for sure and none of them are here on TED) to give the Bush administration a grand foreign project, to secure all kinds of lucrative contracts for defense and security contractors, and after all, Saddam did try to assassinate Dubya's father.
"Was the Iraqi war legitimate?"
In a legal sense, probably not, but then again, international law is more of a gentleman's agreement between politicians then something resembling an ethical justice system, it would be "illegimitate" to assassinate the North Korean leadership to free the people and give food aid to the 8 million malnourished citizens in that country (remember that whenever you hear the words "violation of international law" used by politicians or the media).
"Was the decision to invade Iraq right?"
We'll never know, except fpor the Kurds, everything got better for them, but they are a minority of the population. We don't know if 20 years from now Iraq is better off then it would have been 20 years from now without the invasion and even if it is, who's to say the sacrifices were worth it, who can make that judgment? And even then, that may just be luck, not the result of great and noble planning by the Bush administration. Anyway, whatever happens, (the government of) Iran and Al-Qaeda share the blame for everything that went down in Iraq, with the Bush administration: had Iraq been an island there would not have been a violent civil war.
Kate Blake 50+
Jessica Price
Kate Blake 50+
The ONLY ones to profit from war are those selling weapons of mass destruction, google that please?
!
edward long 100+
Luke Hobbs
Have you ever asked yourself " What is war?"? I don't mean the Dictionary or wiki version, but as a society, what actually is war? Why, when war "happens" is it ok to kill a whole bunch of people?And For what? Someone's ego? So they can feel powerful and in control like some insecure baby? Why is it ok to make children shoot their parents just because "we're at war and are just using this to create psychological weakness"... JUST? Really? Humans are very good at using the word "JUST" to JUSTify doing bad things, and for some reason it makes it okay. JUST is a lie.
edward long 100+
Gordon Barker 10+
You really must find other sources than Fox news
The Bush reasons for invading Iraq were fabricated. Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons and, as well as links to Al-Qaeda.
Alan Greenspan said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Additionally, in his memoir, Mr. Greenspan writes: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." One report by BBC journalist Gregory Palast citing unnamed "insiders" alleged that the U.S. "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields" and planned for a coup d'état in Iraq long before September 11
The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations produced "Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century," a report describing the long-term threat of energy crises such as blackouts and rising fuel prices then playing havoc with the state of California. The report recommended a comprehensive review of U.S. military, energy, economic, and political policy toward Iraq "with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions."
Luke Hobbs
edward long 100+
george lockwood 20+
Jessica Price
Jessica Price
Luke Hobbs
Jessica Price
Luke Hobbs
It's 2012, almost 2013. I had hoped that CIVILity in humans would be a global phenomenon by now in that we have learned to be civil and be respectful to one another, and not screw each other over a dollar or an egocentric sense of power.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
@Jessica Ogunbiyi
1. America has both been in favor of Dictatorship and even instilled them such as Shah in Iran. There are also dozens of Dictators world wide (past and present) inwhich nothing is/was done about them.
2. Saddams actions to his neighbouring countries and his own people was largely unchanged whether America was onside with Saddam or not, America merely turned a blind eye when they were friends and then used his actions as justification for an attack when that friendship ceased.
3. There was no evidence that Saddam had any such weapons nor any connection to any group who was planning on attacking US soil. Alqaeda was also not present in Iraq until after the invasion.
Unfortunately you are wrong on every point, please research further.
Jessica Price
Xavier Belvemont 30+
"There was evidence from eyewitnesses that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people (the Kurdish people of Southern Iraq)"
Yes and America did nothing when he gassed the Kurds.
Ever wonder why that was the case, yet essentially anything was enough to attack both him and Gaddafi in the present era?..
As your comment indicates,you know full well that the actions of such people hadn't changed in time, so whats the only remarkable difference between the US turning a blind eye in the 80's and the US fighting 'for the rights of those people' in the 2000's?
The book 'confessions of an Economic hitman' actually verifies what I assumed, that the only difference was that the US was no longer an ally in the 2000's due to a breakdown over resource exports and oil trade currencies.
"and so it could be argued that Hussein was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction"
No, it could be argued that he HAD used weapons of mass destruction over 20 years earlier, but since had its infrastructure crippled during the Gulf war on an unrelated incidient.
No UN or independent intelligence report demonstrated the existence of said weapons.
"Iraq did not allow terrorists to be extricated and this way could be argued that he was in support of terrorists."
A number of countries won't extradite its citizens for a number of reasons, China included, especially those which have not received trial or even evidence that they are infact terrorists.
No intelligent agency has connected Saddam with Alqaeda or any such terrorist organization, especially those relevant to the US.
"As the Bush doctrine goes a country is either with the US or against."
The Bush Doctrine is pre-emptive war prior to substantiated justification or an attack on the US's own soil, not what you claim.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Saddam hated Al queda and was not harbouring them.