> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator,

Innocent people died, friend.

It's not as straight forward as this. Many innocent people died (and would have continued to die) at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. So, was removing a ruthless dictator a good thing to do? On the surface, probably yes, but Saddam's removal left a huge power vacuum in the region, allowing even more extreme and violent factions to set up shop. So, in the end, would it have been better to leave a known genocide practitioner in place to maintain regional stability?

This is a very good answer.

It puts us in the situation of weighing the suffering and death of the war against the continued Saddam rule. That's an interesting debate where it is possible that the invasion was less good.

Do you understand how bonkers it sounds to play calculus with millions of lives in the service of geopolitics?

Did you feel the invasion of Germany in 1944 was in the services of geopolitics?

It's not geopolitics to try and determine if fewer people would die with or without Saddam in power. Saddam's chemical attacks against civilians are well documented and not widely disputed. His internal security apparatus was open with their brutality in order to induce fear on the population.

I think that the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, particularly how the government misled the people, but I find it absolutely baffling when people will not even honestly address the situation in good faith. You cannot simply argue that "many people civilians died as a result of the Iraq War therefore it's bad" without addressing the situation beforehand. Lots of people died during the Allied invasion of Germany, but I think most people would agree that it was the correct thing to do.

> I think that the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, particularly how the government mislead the people, but I find it absolutely baffling when people will not even honestly address the situation in good faith.

The justification for the war was obviously fabricated, so I don't know what sort of good faith you are asking for. Perhaps to debate some post hoc justification for a thoughtless decision that was paid for with the lives of people who didn't have a choice in the matter? People who touch such questions are only going to injure their humanity.

By the way, when you think about the question of WW2 in terms of "when to intervene" instead of "whether to intervene at all", it becomes as murky and vicious a question as can be, and it ought to make anyone queasy to examine in close detail the decisions made throughout the period. That said, the neoconservative methodology of deciding who to bomb has no justification and people who want to debate that have more urgent issues to address.

I suspect those inside the Warsaw Ghetto may have had different views on intervention than you do.

I absolutely agree that talking about intervention is murky, which was precisely my point.

Hundreds of thousands of people. Some estimates put the number at a million.

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing.

It also empowered radicals and created perfect conditions for them to thrive. By radicals I mean terrorists, proponents of Islamic state and such. Guns and ammunition ended in their hands that would not ended there.

Regardless of results, calling it merely misguided honest mistake in search of democracy building is naive or a lie. The war was not motivated by altruism and so called mistakes were simply lies. There us such thing as too much of benefit of doubt.

That does not mean other countries leaders are less cynical or more altrustic through, merely they have less power.

_Active_ WMD program turned to be a total fabrication. WMDs were a-plenty in Iraq: "American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...

> But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy?

Yes. The US, just 20 years prior during the Iran-Iraq war [1]. That's kind of the point. Since WWII the US engages in or supports wars (which kill lots of people) out of naked self-interest while trying to paint themselves as morally good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2

I think it’s very idealistic to think that the war was for helping the oppressed people of Iraq. Iraq War costed $2.4 trillion[1], figure out who pocketed it and then you will have a picture closer to reality. That picture tells me that the intentions were more corrupt than pure.

[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

I did not state my personal opinion, just asked a question.

I believe public forums are great to post facts and questions, but horrible to debate opinions.

I just was shocked to hear that anyone considered it was even possibly an evil thing and not just misguided.

So, I am actually happy to see another poster's short comment about civilian casualties, destruction, and other impacts of war.

That was kinda a perfect answer I think. You could see it as evil from a utilitarian standpoint because the suffering under Saddam was less than the suffering it took to displace him.

I have no idea how to weigh those two, but that's an area where I could see someone coming down on the side of letting the dictatorship continue is "less bad". Though I don't really agree with that position.

I don't think evil is the right term. Arrogant is a better one. I think they really believed that the people in Iraq were waiting for the the US to liberate them and would become loyal allies immediately.