TED Conversations

Jessica Price

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?

Related Talks:
Topics: George Bush Middle East Saddam Hussein United states of America War in Iraq anti terrorism nuclear weapons terrorism the united nations war on terror
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jessica Price

    • 0
    Nov 27 2012: The decision to invade Iraq was the right decision as America was faced with a dictator who had used chemical weapons and harbored a terrorist group who attacked US soil.
    • thumb

      Luke Hobbs

      • +1
      Nov 27 2012: I wonder though if that should have been a more an FBI/Interpol type exercise than invading a Sovereign Nation. Thousands upon thousand of civilians get caught up in war and in this modern day I like to believe we have far more precise and tactful methods. I mean the US Govt isn't exactly clean, but I also would not accept millions of civilians being killed to overthrow them...

      • Jessica Price

        • 0
        Nov 27 2012: What other methods would you personally suggest?
        • thumb

          Luke Hobbs

          • 0
          Nov 28 2012: Well, for a start we the public don't have ALL of the information behind the true cause of that war. I'm not talking about Bush doing this or Saddam doing that, I'm talking about what is it about us as a species that stops us seeing the big picture and acting accordingly; what is it that drives us to live a lie in being a CIVILised race yet act do not be civil?

          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.
    • thumb

      Xavier Belvemont 30+

      • +2
      Nov 27 2012: .
      @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

        • 0
        Nov 27 2012: There was evidence from eyewitnesses that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people (the Kurdish people of Southern Iraq) and so it could be argued that Hussein was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not allow terrorists to be extricated and this way could be argued that he was in support of terrorists. As the Bush doctrine goes a country is either with the US or against.
        • thumb

          Xavier Belvemont 30+

          • 0
          Nov 27 2012: .

          "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.
    • thumb

      Obey No1kinobe 50+

      • 0
      Nov 28 2012: What terrorist group did Iraq Harbour?

      Saddam hated Al queda and was not harbouring them.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.