NEED Quick help! Why did we go into Iraq?

W

Wallew

Moderator
A buddy of mine emailed me today and ask me a favor. He said," My daughter has a debate coming up, where she has to debate why we are in Iraq and why it is worth the effort. Do you have any good emails that outline the chain of events that got us there?"

She is in Jr. High. So, while I dig through my stuff, does ANYONE HAVE A GREAT RESPONSE that I can forward on?

Thx in advance. Jim w
 
i have a great resource for you, watch Fareinheit 911, it follows the whole sequence of events as they really happened, not the lies the news fed us.
And you can add, why are we going to invade Iran this summer to the same list. Really what it boils down to is MONEY.

We stole billions of dollars from Iraq when we took over their oil fields. We built a pipeline through Afganistan when we took them over. Doesnt anybody realize the people who attacked us on 911 were ALL Saudi Arabians????
 
1.We went into Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush.

2.We went into Iraq because there are about 7 billion barrels of oil reserves still in the ground.

3.We went into Iraq because this country is going to make George Bush's business partners very rich in the next two decades,they hope.


4.The moral of the story for the children is never try to kill a Massachutes cowboys daddy.
 
We went in to oust Saddam because he tortures people in his prison and had some aluminum tubing that looked suspiciously like a centrifuge!

We are also there to give the Iraqi people freedom!!!







LoL.
 
Election leaves war-weary Fallujans cold

story.aid.falluja.cnn.jpg


About 2,200 Fallujans every day visit one of three humanitarian aid sites in the city, which was the battleground for a fierce confrontation between U.S. forces and insurgents. And in the lines for food, the main topic of conversation is not Sunday's election. One of them told CNN: "Our hearts are burned," he said. "How can we vote when we don't believe in what we are voting for?"
Click to expand...
 
We went into Iraq because it was the most logical target.

The September 11 atrocity was planned and financed by bin laden and al qaeda. Their money and people came mainly from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, with the Afghan government (the taliban) being the most overtly anti-American and belligerent. Afghanistan also gave aid and shelter to the mastermind, bin laden. For this reason alone, they became target number one.

The pentagon knew that Afghanistan was too distant a target to make a truly effective demonstration of their new resolve against terror, so another target had to be chosen. The country that deserved it most was Saudi Arabia, but since they have been a "friend" of the U.S. for so long, there was no way we would attack them. Besides, I am sure that they have bankrolled a large portion of our activities in Iraq - trading money and oil for us to not invade them...

Though I don't buy into the War for Oil propaganda, if you are going to choose a country to attack, you should choose one that makes the most sense. These were the criteria for the countries that were considered for invasion in order of importance:

The country must be mainly islamic and located in the Middle East.
The country must not be too strong militarily or financially.
The country must have mediocre to poor relations with other islamic countries.
The country should have oil.
The country should have a secular government (for ease of transition to democracy).
The country should have a tie-in to terrorism (most of them do...).

It really didn't matter which islamic country we attacked. It was more important that we not back down again like we had under Clinton. We had to make a stong showing in the back yard of the islamic fundamentalists. Their extremist religion knew no national boundaries, so what difference should boundaries make when choosing a nation to invade?

Iraq fit the above criteria best. It had the added advantages of being the other bookend to Iran, having its air space already under de facto U.S. control, and it was still being run by Saddam Hussein who continued to be a burr in the Bush family's saddle.

Even if Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 (and they probably didn't) they were the most logical target for the reasons outlined above. Larger wars have started over less.

-Dave
 
My dumb previous answer aside (unless you've had a shwarma), Dave's explanation is probably the closest to anything real you'll ever get.

The US needed a show of force, and the Germans hadn't reinvaded Poland. We demonstrated the willingness to take on an immense Army at the slightest provocation and completely crush them. I'm sure the lesson was not lost in North Korea, either. But N. Korea and Iran would have missed the mark since the Iranians are working to reform themselves (and aren't Arabs or Sunnis, so the point might have been missed with the rest of the Gulf), and Korea would have been an absolute disaster for ALL Koreans and created a headache with China.

Sadam was unpopular, but militarily feared, so we pants'd him.


There's no way of determining if it was ultimately to our benefit in suppressing terror or not. It might have been, but a year of insurgency isn't helping us.
 
Why did we go into Iraq?
Click to expand...
Because for some the idea that "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" still lives.



""(T)he passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes." -- Michael Moore on Flight 93

snacktrack,
You can't seriously be suggesting anything Moore says can you? ("watch Fareinheit 911"). The guy is a shameless liar that cashes in on controversy.
 
Just a faint view of a vet....

Call me silly now and let me write a few lines when your done laughing at me:

I think I remember a whole bunch on UN resolutions that were getting kicked around like tumble weeds by the Ole Boss of Iraq? I know most of you feel warm fuzzy thoughts about the UN and all the good they do in the world... I sorta have a different opinion due to track record or should I say the lack of a track record. The little Oil For Food Program showed us why the French, Germans, and Russians were willing to give Sadam a pass. The press even reported mass graves of civilians that Sadam or his men were responsible for. I hate to go back to history and be so unfair as to say I think Sadam might have some qualities of a few other dictators of the past?
Sorry, I guess he hadn't killed to the numbers of Hitler but I think he had some of those qualities? I also remember Colin Powel showing many recon photos of mobile weapons systems that Iraq was moving around. The tubes that could be used in the process of production of a Nuke. How about the fact that US pilots were still random targets from Sadam's ground forces? See the first Gulf War ended with a no-fly zone in Northern Iraq. It was in place to help protect the Kurds from more of Sadam's weapons of mass destruction (Nerve Gas) remember?
I am wondering how some can keep asking what did we go to war for? I just gave you a few reminders. I won't argue the we want all the oil statement. It seems that we could argue that forever. If it were true and we are the evil US, why isn't all the oil ours? If it were, I might not be paying near 2.00 a gallon at the pump. So on and on it goes.
I hope and pray the election process works and all of Iraq's people can come to a civilized understanding and try to let a free democratic society get a chance to work. I know - I have a lot of feeling it won't because maybe the mass of folks there do hate our way of life....but if they get a chance at it they might realize that it could work. It isn't perfect but it's one of the best ways I know. With luck and God on the side of the good... I would wish within 1-2 years all but a small amount of our troops could be redeployed back to the US and reunite with their families. So, as we fight and argue about why we should or shouldn't be there, it would be nice to realize we are there..... I don't care how much you hate Bush and his team...part of his team is the US military....... they could use more support than the media telling them how more and more American's question Bush and question the war....... Don't you think that is demoralization???? I can bet out of all the thousands of men and women in combat not 1 percent want to be.....

ok....... if you need go ahead and start laughing........ ya I'm just a dumb veteran with no clue........ ;)
 
I'm not laughing. I thank you for your service as I do the men and women serving today.
At this point, we have three groups of people. One group supports the war for many of the reasons you listed. The other group opposed the war for a variety of reasons, but realize we are there and so for the interest of the country show support for the troups; they are more concerned with "seeing it through" and correcting mistakes that apply to the present situation, than with trying to find ways to say "I told you so". The third group is of the "protest mentality" and you are never going to convince them of anything. They have taken select lessons of the 60's and 70's and elevated them to the extent that the lessons of that era, as well as all other historical events and wars are overshadowed. As long as they can look in the mirror and imagine they see Bob Dylan, they could care less about the effect of their actions. For the first two groups I have respect. The third group deserves none.
 
what exactly does "support the troops" mean?

does it mean, you hope the troops, the people over there fighting, stay alive and get home to their families?

or does it mean, support the administration who orders the troops to fight?

there is a big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top