Who is responsible for the Iraq War ?? Hussein, Bush, Blair or bin Laden ??

There has been a lot of talk about the Iraq war recently on the news, and I am interested in my politics. Michael Moore holds Blair responsible, but I don;'t think he was a warmonger. What are your opinions on this ??

None of the above. My thoughts on all of that is words are words, actions are actions. Any one of those names can speak of war or a call to war, or ask things to happen. But it's the people that perform the act, that actually go to the war, that make it a war. They don't have to listen to orders or talk, they chose to anyway.

I'm sure saying that will spark a comment or two about loyalty and chain of command and following orders, commitment to your country and so on. The fact of that matter is everyone has a choice, some people like to say they didn't, but the truth is they do, they just chose the lesser of the two consequences in the end.

Good point Tellahane. The thing I don't understand, and no disrespect to military Jedi here, whom i know there are a lot of, why do you do it ?? How can you do it ?? Why do you go to the Middle East to say you are 'protecting your country' (which, by the way, is no where near the middle East !!), carpet bomb women and children, kill civilians, and risk your lives, potentially also risking the lives of your family (depression, suicide etc). It doesn't make sense. As Obi-Wan said, there are alternatives to fighting. War will end when people learn to sit down and talk to each other.

Ooh, this is a tough one. Any war and its origins are complicated, of course. Saddam Hussein was boasting to his neighbors and to the West that he had powerful weapons that he could use against them, and not only did Britain and the United States believe that, but the rest of the world did as well. That was a very dangerous game to be playing with the world powers, and as Hussein and Iraq were suspected of harboring al-Qaeda, which had declared responsibility for the 2001 September 11 attacks, I find it hard to believe that invasion was not inevitable.

I'm aware that both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair pushed forward for the invasion, stating the motive as the disarming of weapons of mass destruction, while many also wanted to topple Saddam's regime and bring democracy to the middle eastern countries - the problem being that these cultures aren't that compatible with democracy, and as a consequence of the wars, situations only became worse, and the path for ISIL to rise to power was created.

I now agree that we shouldn't have invaded. Was any one person really responsible? Perhaps the United States and Britain did greatly overestimate the truth of the threat that Iraq posed, but at the time, Saddam Hussein was acting as though he was a very real threat, and the whole world bought it. Also, al-Qaeda and its successors have become that real threat, so I wonder, what should we have done, and what should we do now?

Saddam Hussein was boasting to his neighbors and to the West that he had powerful weapons that he could use against them

No.

not only did Britain and the United States believe that, but the rest of the world did as well

Actually France called on your BS, said they wouldn't take part in the warmongering and did everything to prevent it. Most countries in the world with an official stance on the issue chose not to support this aggression.

Asking this question is similar to asking which ingredient is responsible for making a cake. They were all part of the recipe that led to the eventual outcome. You can take any one of them out of the recipe and you might still end up with a cake, but maybe not. It is easy to look back at history and assign responsibility, but as current events unfold it isn't always so clear. Sometimes you think you are baking a cake and end up with muffins instead.

Tellahane wrote: But it's the people that perform the act, that actually go to the war, that make it a war. They don't have to listen to orders or talk, they chose to anyway.

It's not that simple. As we've learned the hard way recently, sometimes war is brought to our doorsteps. Soldiers and their commanding officers do not always choose when and where they will have to fight. They bring the fight where they believe it is necessary based on information that you and I will never be fully aware of. We ask them to make these tough choices for us because we are unwilling to make that sacrifice ourselves. If they do not follow these orders, would you? Or perhaps the more pointed question is if they did not follow these orders and harm came to you because of it, would you blame them or would you blame yourself?

Every politician who supported it, every politician who didn't fight against it, all of the people who signed up for it, and the people who specifically committed the action which lead to war as well as the people who convinced them to do so.

I believe that everyone who was involved in any way shares some level of responsibility, and whether that's good or bad is up to them.

Does it even matter who began it? A more pressing question is "Who will be responsible for ending it?"

Miss_Leah wrote: Does it even matter who began it? A more pressing question is "Who will be responsible for ending it?"

The ones who started it? That's usually how responsibility is established. He who causes it deals with it.

Senan wrote: If they do not follow these orders, would you? Or perhaps the more pointed question is if they did not follow these orders and harm came to you because of it, would you blame them or would you blame yourself?

Neither, I would blame the person doing the harming. For without that choice from that person to do the harming in the first place, there would be no need for blame in the first place.

My point I was trying to make was not the view of a soldier in defense of the country, but another who chooses to attack it. The perspective that news and other outlets would try to say is that we moved into iraq to prevent an attack or prevent hostilities and so on, but I'm sure there are people in iraq who believe we did to them what other terrorist organizations or countries have done to the united states in years passed.

The point of my message is simple, anyone who causes harm, for the purpose of war, is the cause of said war. Not what a politician sais, in the perfect world if no one caused harm there would be no problems, but that is an environment to which we will probably not see in our lifetimes because not everyone is raised or taught to respect others views and opinions and that faith and belief which is so strongly encouraged and supported by so many organizations and religion's causes blind following, which will always lead to inevitably corruption and conflict.

I don't think about these matters often, and haven't spent hardly any time in politics so keep that in mind in judging my response, but that's how I see it as of this post. My view may change tomorrow, who knows, I will plan to meditate on it.