Was the Iraq Invasion justified? It seems It may have had numerous justifications.

The discussion about the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is still very heated, as shown in a recent episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored where Valentina Gomez was present and failed to answer.

Critics, including Morgan, label the invasion as "illegal," but many argue that Saddam Hussein's government was a serious threat to the U.S., regional stability, and global safety. Saddam's history of aggression, especially when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 over oil disputes, raised alarms about his ambitions for expansion.

This invasion not only endangered U.S. allies but also showed his willingness to destabilize the region further. He had gathered troops near Saudi Arabia, threatening a wider assault on the Arabian Peninsula. His anti-Israel stance, including threats to "burn half of Israel" with chemical weapons, painted Iraq as a rogue state willing to engage in further aggression.

Saddam's regime was notorious for extreme human rights abuses. The Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988 involved using chemical weapons, killing thousands of innocent people. During the 1991 Shia uprising, Iraqi forces executed many civilians and displaced people by draining marshlands.

Reports reveal torture chambers, mass graves containing up to 300,000 victims, and the use of child soldiers, highlighting the horrific reality of living under Saddam's rule. His anti-Western rhetoric was coupled with support for terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Palestinian militants, further showcasing the threats his regime posed.

Supporters of the invasion argue that even though no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found in 2003, it was still vital to remain cautious due to Iraq's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The fear of a nuclear-armed Saddam emphasized the risks of not intervening.

After the invasion, some suggested dividing Iraq into separate regions for Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish groups—similar to Joe Biden's proposal in 2006. This could have helped reduce violence and allowed local governments to manage their own resources.

This idea is compared to the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, which successfully ended ethnic conflict through a federal system, though some warn that divisions can also lead to ongoing conflict.

In the midst of this complex topic, Valentina Gomez’s appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored highlighted her failure to engage meaningfully with the issue of the Iraq invasion.

Instead of addressing Morgan’s questions directly, she diverted the conversation to comments about Muslims and terrorism, calling for the expulsion of "dirty Muslims" from Texas. Her remarks were widely condemned as hate speech.

Blind hate is counterproductive. Valentina could have answered really well to that question but instead she tried to divert it. I hope this write up reaches to her. She is very young and should learn to be reasonable. Being cunning is way better than being boastful.

5 comments