RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Ratings Breakdown

  • 2
  • 3

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

The war had reasonable chance for success and was not to be fought capriciously or experimentallyGet Rating Widget!

Overall Rating:3.40 based on 5 ratings
ad jus bellum (Add picture)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=justified)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item

Reviews for The war had reasonable chance for success and was not to be fought capriciously or experimentally  1-4 OF 4

Browse next item:
The war should reasonably have a chance of leaving
Sort items by:
lmorovan (12)
The war itself was 100% successful. The Saddam Hussein regime was removed and the tyranny was eliminated. As in every country which has lived under dictators, many resentments and hatred was boiling under the radar, unable to manifest itself for fear of retribution from the tyranny. Once the obstacle has been eliminated, the internal conflicts were unleashed, and it will take up to at least one generation to subside.

  (1 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 1 agree)
Daccory (15)
Nonsense. The American administration was told by nearly every other country in the world - and their own advisors-that this would lead to a protracted situation from which it would be difficult to emerge without inflaming cultural attitudes. The Government KNEW this, but what did they care? They wanted to do it anyway. Update for Lance: Let's get something straight once and for all. America joined the Second World War because of the attack on Pearl Harbor and only then. There are no illusions this side of the Atlantic about that! But what we are talking about is an attack on an unarmed country that by international convention ( drawn up by the US too!) was illegal. Yes, the Iraqis needed help..so do the Zimbabweans. When is America going to invade that country? Or North Korea? Or Syria? This simply does not work and we have to...all the countries together...find a way how to deal with these problems.And that bozo in the White House hasn't a clue how to go about it if he isn't willing to dicuss the reservations and concerns of the rest of the planet. Through this man,America has lost almost all its credibility in the eyes of the globe...and that is a damn shame,something you should care about! To call this fact squawking means you that don't.

  (3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
LanceRoxas (40)
In retrospect the after war planning was very poor. Paul Bremer disbanding all the former members of the Iraq armed forces was a huge mistake. The lack of border control to keep out foreign fighters fed our inability early on to control this very sizable terrorist insurgency being fought primarily by foreigners. The lack of troops hurt us emensely. This however is all in retrospect. The United States armed forces are simply the greatest fighting machine this planet has every scene up until this point. Our death toll in this war is a fraction of what it has been in all others. In Vietnam we lost 1 soldier for every 13 in combat. In World War 11 we lost 1 soldier for every 15 in combat. In the Korean War we lost 1 for every 12 in combat. In this war we have lost 1 for every 1500 in combat. This criteria however needs to be taken in conjunction with the prospects of leaving the nation in a better situation than it was when we went in and also taking into account the prospects of propping up a democracy where one has never existed. I think taking into account the brutal dictatorship that had posed a threat to the world community and the people it tyrannized few can argue the loss of that regime is a detriment to the world. The later is debatable in the context of this discussion. Can the United States prop up democracies? I believe so. I believe human nature dictates a universal capacity for freedom and liberty. Yes, humans are greatly influenced by their environments. Cultures can however be sick, and are understood as such by their incongruence with the universal and naturally accepted patterns of human life. Are these determinations about the congruence between what are and aren't universal patterns easily made? Of course not. But assumptions about overtly egregious acts upon mankind can. These types of things are embedded in our standards of human rights. And how else can justice prevail but at the end of just force when cultures are hopelessly sick? I argue therefore that we are committing a larger crime if we do not fight in the face of these violations against mankind when we posses the ability to do so. Is our ability boundless? Of course not. But when in the context of other criteria and parameters the burden must fall on the United States to seek justice. Update- Daccory's additions to a discussion about Just War in Iraq: "nonesense" "noway" "utter nonssense" man... quite robust intellectualism. The United States was itching to get into and expensive protacted war and the cowboy Bush went to war because he wanted to...squawk.. squawk... squawk. The only problem is there is no proof of that and the fact that we took over 17 months debating the facts doesn't support the ludicrous assumption. But what the hell nobody's changing your mind anyhow. I always laugh how the Brits are so quick to dismiss us going to the aid of the Iraqi people but easily forget how we saved their butts in WWI and WWII when similar arguments were being made here in the States as to why we shouldn't enter those wars.

  (3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
EschewObfuscation (61)
It did. And, it wasn't. From this standpoint, it qualifies the war as a "just war" and one whose outcome was not really in question, once the invasion was underway.

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
1-4 OF 4View All
Add a rating badge for The war had reasonable chance for success and was not to be fought capriciously or experimentally to your site!
Add a rating badge to your site!