Author Topic: Why did we go into Iraq? (Read 1498 times)

Hazzer · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:10:55 PM »

They new if they wanted to rearrange the map of the middle east to satisfy American interests,they would need a good excuse to send in the troops,.Saddam was ideal,they linked him to Bin Laden-a joke if ever their was one,they couldn't stand each other,saddam was an athiest as far as Laden was concerned-an piled on dodgy intelligence about wmd's.An American public beying for blood after 9/11 was easy to convince the troops were on their way.

What has happened since, could have ,an probabley was forseen by Bush's adviser's. they only needed to look at the British experience after wwI!!

That the greatest democracy in the world could fool an convince it's ppl and Allies in to this Illegal an disgusting act,beggars belief.This conflict shames us all in the west, and History will not be Kind.The rammifications will ring out well into the 21st century.

It is rank an stinks to high heaven,did my father fight for five years against tyrrany an injustice,just so we could do the same thig 60 years later?

Of course the real losers will be the Iraqi ppl,their suffering will go on long after the last western soldiers have left.

soda72 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:27:44 PM »

Poor Saddam, what a victim...

Hazzer · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:38:42 PM »

Yeah toppling a little tinpot dictator was worth billions of dollars,thousands of american lives, and the destabilisation of the Region,not to mention half a million innocent Iraqi's with more to come.Well Done.When are you going to sort out all the other dictators.Mugabe? how about china...No ??no interest.

Not got the stomach?you swallowed Bush's propaganda Hook,line, and sinker.

Why are you in Iraq?look in the mirror.

Yeager · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:28:06 PM »

yours is an interesting opinion hazzer, and no doubt one that is shared with a great many other people.

Dadano · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:52:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
...Well Done...

An objective discussion is important. Try not to get worked up.
The idea is that we went into Iraq for a bigger stake in our own fate, our own survival. The equation is not oil for money, but rather oil for power. Oil is the life blood of capitalism and the western way of life.
Without access to adequate oil supply, the American machine breaks down. It literally seizes like any engine. We cannot let that happen. I think the war in Iraq is justified on that basis.

x0847Marine · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2007, 02:53:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
The threat assessment upon which the Bush administration acted was fundamentally sound. The only mistake in its calculus, made by the CIA and numerous foreign intelligence services, was positing that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--as well as a concealed nuclear-weapons program--after 1991. It was, however, an honest mistake. The claim that Bush lied about Saddam's WMD is itself a lie. There is no doubt that the administration sincerely believed that Saddam retained a substantial WMD arsenal.

Honest mistake? Bush correctly stated that a defector told them about stock piles of chemical weapons in Iraq, the informant also said he personally saw them destroyed... both were true, bush just had a mental lapse and forgot to mention the part about how they no longer existed.

Bush also failed to mention the shelf life of these weapons, if they did still exist as the informant stated, they were useless. Another honest omission I suppose.

Bush even admitted Saddam didn't have what he and his neo-clown cronies "had no doubts" existed, the nefarious "WMD".... listen to the man in his own words:

news interview

El Jefe Bush said: "...the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, we thought he had weapons of mass destruction... turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction"

When asked what Iraq had to do with the world trade center attack, bush correctly stated "nothing".

Going to war based on intelligence that turns out to be wrong against a country that had "nothing" to do with attacking us... can make a president look pretty stupid.

crockett · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2007, 02:58:30 PM »

Why did we go into Iraq?

I've thought about this long and hard.. the only answer I could come with with is..

to get to the other side.

Elfie · « **Reply #37 on:** June 19, 2007, 03:25:37 PM »

Quote

I think the war in Iraq is justified on that basis.

Maybe.....

What if, instead of spending billions on a war halfway around the world. We instead invest that money into research for alternative, renewable energy?

Is the war still justified on that basis? There was an alternative.

If we find a new energy source other than oil, we make the Middle East irrelevant.

Sandman · « **Reply #38 on:** June 19, 2007, 03:36:04 PM »

There is just one clear winner in this fiasco.

Israel.

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #39 on:** June 19, 2007, 03:40:36 PM »

sorry sandman i disagree.

there are no winners, just people who suffer less than others.

Dadano · « **Reply #40 on:** June 19, 2007, 03:58:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe.....
What if, instead of spending billions on a war halfway around the world. We instead invest that money into research for alternative, renewable energy?
Is the war still justified on that basis? There was an alternative.
If we find a new energy source other than oil, we make the Middle East irrelevant.

We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?

Elfie · « **Reply #41 on:** June 19, 2007, 04:47:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dadano
We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?

Just think of the money that could be made if you got in on the ground floor of a new energy source. Mebbe these folks in office aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.....or the garage.....or the toolbox....

Viking · « **Reply #42 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:12:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
They new if they wanted to rearrange the map of the middle east to satisfy American interests,they would need a good excuse to send in the troops,.Saddam was ideal,they linked him to Bin Laden-a joke if ever their was one,they couldn't stand each other,saddam was an athiest as far as Laden was concerned-an piled on dodgy intelligence about wmd's.An American public beying for blood after 9/11 was easy to convince the troops were on their way.

What has happened since, could have ,an probabley was forseen by Bush's adviser's. they only needed to look at the British experience after wwI!!

That the greatest democracy in the world could fool an convince it's ppl and Allies in to this Illegal an disgusting act,beggars belief.This conflict shames us all in the west, and History will not be Kind.The rammifications will ring out well into the 21st century.

It is rank an stinks to high heaven,did my father fight for five years against tyrrany an injustice,just so we could do the same thig 60 years later?

Of course the real losers will be the Iraqi ppl,their suffering will go on long after the last western soldiers have left.

Aye.

Banzzai · « **Reply #43 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:27:45 PM »

Personally i think it was to finsh the job from 1991
If coallition troops had made a left turn and headed north
then they would have been recieved as liberators/heroes

GWB wanted too finish the work daddy hadn't/could not
finish because of CNN's daily reports of the Basra Hghway

i think every soldier in GW1 wanted to head North
but thanks to CNN/BBC & public opinion
there wasn't a cat in Hells chance

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #44 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:32:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dadano
We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?

3 times if you want to include Sr

Whats that tell you abut what the left has been offering up?

One thing I know for certain.

Politics being the way it is.
Had Clinton gone in and did it instead of Bush

The arguments would be the same.
Just who did the arguing on what would be reversed.

I personally would have been for it even if Clinton had done it.
It was something that needed to be done sooner or later. It was just a matter of whom was going to do it.
But I've covered that ground countless times already

But even then I see it like this
At this point.
Arguing over if it was a mistake to go in or not is an irrelevant and pointless argument

Fact of the matter is we're there now. And regardless of what yahoo politician says what. We aren't leaving in the immediate future.
We aren't going to just pull out No matter who from what party gets elected in and what song they try to sing you insinuating otherwise.
It aint gonna happen

So might as well get that fantasy out of your heads right now and get used to the idea.

The fact remains we ARE there and WILL be for the foreseeable future.
So
Rather then arguing over if we should be there or not.
The question should be what to do to succeed.

Pissing and moaning over going in there or not and if we should have done what we already did only serves to hurt our troops in the field.
Most of them believe in what they are doing
And pissing and moaning back here at home only serves to hurt moral over there. Rather then showing them our support.

I saw an interview with one soldier a while back who said and I will quote as best as I can remember word for word."
"If you support us. If you want to support us. Support the war. The two go hand in hand. If you don't support the war your not supporting us. And we really wish you would just STFU" (the last two sentences being word for word exact)

On a more personal note I keep hearing time and time again. The troops biggest worry is loosing the support for the war here and not being allowed to finish the job

This is what separates us from the "greatest generation" And why today's society cant even dream about measuring up or filling the shoes of our forefathers
Prior to entry into WWII most of the country was against getting involved in the war.
Yet. Once we were in it. Maximum effort was used in winning it at home as well as abroad.
And while every death is tragic. the casualties we have suffered here is a mere drop in the well when compared to what was suffered in WWII
292,131 KIA in WWII and a total of 1,078,162 casualties total in only a little more then 4 years

Not including the civil war. The KIA list is larger then all other American wars including this one combined.
Now there is a generation who knew suffering and sacrifice and understood that some things take time.
Nowadays we're and instant gratification society.
Who cant be bothered to wait a minute to get out of our own way
Anything short of instant success is viewed as an abysmal failure.

Again. while every single death is a terrible loss.
By contrast when compared to our other wars.
These numbers are nothing short of miraculously low.

but again the fact remains. We are there now. the time for arguing if we should be there has long since past
And casualties are going to happen no matter how much we do not like it.
The best we can do now. the right thing to do now. Is to help our troops succeed.

Not everybody wants to fight. but once your in one you might as well win the damn thing