NEED Quick help! Why did we go into Iraq?

Snacktrack

1. Mainly to avenge the assassination attempt against President Bush's father, President Bush Sr.

2. To satisfy Israel's regional ambitions.

3. Possibly to protect S.Arabia.

Contrary to the "left-wing" crap, it's not about the oil, as major American oil companies did NOT want a high-profile war.
 
Snacktrack - 1st, if you really believe that michael moore crap, then there is
obviously no sense in trying to rationalize with you.

2nd. It really doesn't matter in the great scheme of thing WHY we went to
war. If you believe all the liberal propaganda, you will NEVER believe the war
was just, or necessary, no matter what. Some people will find something
wrong with ANYTHING just to have a chance to piss and moan.

What REALLY matters is (A) Bush IS President. Even if you don't like him, he
won, support YOUR COUNTRY instead of dividing it with all this political
termoil. Even if Kerry would have won, whom I personally don't agree with, I
don't HATE him or call him devil or anything (like anti-bush people do), and
would have still SUPPORTED OUR COUNTRY under his leadership. Don't people
realize this kind of craziness makes our country look weak and indecisive?
We are SUPPOSED TO BE A UNION. PERIOD. STAND UNITED. What the
hell is wrong with people. (my granddad says its like raising kids, argue all
you want amongst yourselves about the method, but when it comes to the
kids, parents STAND UNITED) Its common sense really.

And as for the REASON for the war, okay, there may have been just and
unjust reasons. But the FOCUS should be that Saddaam was a horrible
dictator, who tortured and enslaved people at a whim. He destroyed
families, he tortured women and children, he practiced genocide on his own
people, not even respecting them enough to bury them properly, just shoved
them all togeether in mass graves like trash and buried them. Should this
kind of evil man be left in power? Who gives a rats dirty ass about freakin OIL
when you have a guy TORTURING PEOPLE like that? People need to get
over their own silly agendas and stand for the greater good. You DARE to
squabble and rant over OIL for God's sake, while people have their heads and
hands cut off, pulled apart by horses, or flayed or buried alive? How can
you sick, selfish people even LIVE with yourselves?

/rant off
 
what exactly does "support the troops" mean?

- sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
To aid the cause, policy, or interests of.

- the (th before a vowel; th before a consonant)
def.art.
Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things.

- troop(s) (trp)
n.
A group of soldiers; troops Military units, soldiers.


Pretty straight forward I think.
 
I believe the last stated reason by Condi was that 'Saddam was cavorting with terrorists'.

As to:
And as for the REASON for the war, okay, there may have been just and unjust reasons. But the FOCUS should be that Saddaam was a horrible
dictator, who tortured and enslaved people at a whim. He destroyed
families, he tortured women and children, he practiced genocide on his own
people, not even respecting them enough to bury them properly, just shoved
them all togeether in mass graves like trash and buried them. Should this
kind of evil man be left in power? Who gives a rats dirty ass about freakin OIL
when you have a guy TORTURING PEOPLE like that? People need to get
over their own silly agendas and stand for the greater good. You DARE to
squabble and rant over OIL for God's sake, while people have their heads and
hands cut off, pulled apart by horses, or flayed or buried alive? How can
you sick, selfish people even LIVE with yourselves?

Um... do some reading.. We (USA) were giving him money and those chemical weapons at the time. We also don't do invade other 'friendly' contries that do it.
 
The rhetoric about "bad Saddam" would be a little more meaningful if we weren't politely ignoring genocide in Sudan.


Either we're the world's sheriff, or we aren't.
 
Sure is a lot of different answers. Based on that I'd say noone really knows for sure.


Maybe Saddam was tortureing his people and needed to be removed. What makes us the world policeman though? Is it a good tradeoff that our people are over there dying instead of them? Saddam's out and our people are still dying. Are we winning?

One thing for sure. There's more to this all than meets the eye (or media). It's easy to make fun of Michael Moore but there sure seems to be some conflict of interest involved. Even nutcases base their insanity in a shred of truth. Blind allegiance to an administration cloaked in disinformation & lies is just as bad as foolishly buying in 100% to the stuff MM says. Interesting that the administration says that 51 or 52% of the people wholeheartedly support the war. Red flag. Just like the election(s) for the past years. But its democracy people. No way to verify anything and we always just barely lose (or win depending on your view). No more landslide elections or votes for anything ever, betcha dollar.

Those people have been warring for thousands of years. How're we going to settle things and why is it our business to? Do they even welcome us? Doubtful. Iraq is about the size of Ohio. If we had overwhelming support for our prescense there, we'd be done by now. But our boys are still dying daily. There's your clue. The one constant that can't be denied is that our countrymen die daily. For no obvious purpose, otherwise everyone would be in agreement as to why. This war is very questionable.
 
Edward -
This war is very questionable.

So was every other war....especially vietnam. Someone will ALWAYS
QUESTION the need for WAR. It has been so, and always will be, that there
are people dreadfully opposed to war. Thats Ok. Its just really ammusing
to me that the people who cry loudest about the actions of the military
would be the 1st ones cowering behind them if THEY were being attacked....

Odd how opinions change with the threat level or closeness of personal
death or danger........hypocrites one and all when its THEIR BUTTS being
harassed, killed, or even mildly inconvenienced (sp?)
 
We knew for a fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons, both on Iranians and Kurds.

We knew for a fact that he was perfectly happy to invade neighboring nations given the opportunity, and spent billions of dollars kicking him out therefrom.

We knew that he was funding terrorists - $25,000 a pop to the families of Arab suicide bombers was just the beginning.

We knew that if we continued the UN-sponsored meaningless scolding for his consistent flouting of UN resolutions intended to disarm him, and waited until he posed an imminent threat to our nation, it would be too late - John F. Kennedy faced an imminent threat from Russian missiles in Cuba, and that's why it was called the "Cuban Missile Crisis," not the "Cuban Missile Situation."

And as it turns out, the French oil concern TotalFinaElf had tens of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil contracts at stake. with connections through Chriaq's friendship with Saddam, conditioned on preventing any war or regime change. Anyone who harps on Bush's oil connections would do well to educate themselves on that particular oil connection.
 
We are also there to give the Iraqi people freedom!!!
The estimate I saw today said we have "freedomed" about 150,000 of their civillians to death since the start of the war.... and the coalition authority OFFICIALLY ordered the Iraqis to stop counting the dead and with hold the information.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/10/international1027EST0569.DTL

AP Newsbreak: Iraq's Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war

(12-10) 09:58 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied in an email that he had anything to do with the order, saying he didn't even know about the study.

Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.

"We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done."
 
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........
Well, I am not laughing but I know one thing: my wife's reserve unit is attached to the marines out of Camp pendleton, and you won't find 1% of Marines who DON'T want to be there.
 
Sudan you say?

I wonder why the UN hasn't got that one fixed either........ Check the UN list of things done right....ok that was quick...now let's talk about how much $ the US gives this group to continue to fail.... OK........now you will say why aren't we doing more......... If we were you would say we don't have right to stick our nose into it? Listen to yourself......you are against everthing positive and if anything went less than 100% you then cry about that too......Your fun to watch self destruct.........4 more years :D
 
Oil?...yeah it's quite obvious from the price of fuel lately that we're really cashing in on the oil. :rolleyes:

Invading Iran? I guess because last week some news idiot said it then it must be true. I knew someone somewhere would actually believe it.

Michael Moore...such a reliable source of slanted information. His skill for taking things out of context and distorting facts should be admired. And talk about good looking!

Saddam...poor guy I really feel for him. He was just minding his own business. :rolleyes:

Iraq...It would be much better if we could fight terrorists here instead of way over there. I mean, look at all the terrorists from so many foreign countries lining up to get involved in Iraq. That's no fun. Wouldn't it be great if we could have them come here instead! :rolleyes:

"Insurgents"... word cleverly adopted by the media to replace that awful dirty word "Terrorists". There are no terrorists in Iraq, just measly ole' insurgents. :rolleyes:

Abu Ghraib...shame on us for treating those nice terrorists like that! :rolleyes:

I could go on but the liberals aren't following anyway.
 
Right, because every citizen who picks up arms against an invading force is a "terrorist."

People need to engage some common sense between the part of their brain that responds to jingo and the part that shares it with the rest of us.

1Bad350, among all of your points I'm going to choose a single one:
Iraq...It would be much better if we could fight terrorists here instead of way over there. I mean, look at all the terrorists from so many foreign countries lining up to get involved in Iraq. That's no fun. Wouldn't it be great if we could have them come here instead

Did you ever, for one second, stop to think that maybe all these "terrorists" (your word, not mine) might not be so quick to commit "terrorism" against a superior power across the world, paitently minding its own business? That maybe the reason there's so many people up in arms over there is maybe, just maybe, because a foreign power came sauntering in, kicked in the anthill of their lives, and then proceded to squat over it and create a state of martial law?

Think maybe that had something to do with it?

Nah, I guess not.

S'funny, though.. I mean, if you think about it enough, and if you squint really hard, you can almost imagine some cheery English bloke in his funny little cockney accent complaining about those damned new worlders commiting acts of terror about the crown, eh?

Hmm.. If the USSR invaded the USA during the cold war, I bet Americans would've been quick to pick up the fight against the invaders, right? I bet that well-meaning and supportive Canadians, Mexicans, and people from around the globe would've done their utmost to stream into the country and fight that red menace too, because they know that if the USSR wins against the USA that it means a paradigm shift for all of them.

"Terrorists," right?

Now, I know your opinion isn't going to change. Heck, I've just been branded some namby-pamby liberal, I bet. -shrug- I can live with that, coz if you take a look at the word liberal you see its root is liberty.

I like liberty. Gosh, I like it so much I'm gonna go see what "liberal" means on dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Heck, I think I really like defination 1b, here, I'll reprint it for those of you who don't want to make with the clicky:

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

So, now that I've likely defused your likely dose of vitriol, I can finish up: I won't change your mind on Iraq, you're stubborn, and I can respect that. However, I might just be able to let you see a little clearer now, maybe you'll open up that mind a bit and enjoy that fantastic http://www.dictionary.com site a little further to look up words like "insurgency" and "terrorism," maybe then you'll see that the only person who's deluding anyone is yourself, and to yourself.

Support the troops: Bring them home. We need them here to protect our liberty and freedom from those who might just be tempted to lie, cheat, and steal it away from us.
 
Alright, I lied.. Two points:
Abu Ghraib...shame on us for treating those nice terrorists like that!

No, shame on us for stooping to their* level.


* - "Uhm, gfen, didn't you just argue against this terrorist naming thing?" Why yes, gentle reader, I did. However, I'm discussing this with someone who views them all as evil monsters, so, I might as well pander to the crowd. Besides, anyone is free to replace "their level" with a far more unweidly phrase such as, "Saddam Hussein's torture center which just happened to take place in the exact same prison that became famous for US torture." Really, though, that first bit is far more to-the-point, don't you agree? Work with me, here..
 
Hmm.. If the USSR invaded the USA during the cold war, I bet Americans would've been quick to pick up the fight against the invaders, right? I bet that well-meaning and supportive Canadians, Mexicans, and people from around the globe would've done their utmost to stream into the country and fight that red menace too, because they know that if the USSR wins against the USA that it means a paradigm shift for all of them.

Drawing moral equivalence between Americans in Iraq and the brutal oppression of the Taliban and Saddam really has me wondering about the calibration of your moral compass.

If I were living under an oppressive American regime, where half my family had been snatched away on trumped-up charges, where my sisters and daughters were forbidden to be seen in public or to learn to read, where my children were brutalized as a way to pressure me to conform, where I was living day to day in fear that somehow today might be the last day I ever see the sky or have use of my fingernails, then I'd have been absolutely delerious with delight if the Soviets had invaded to overthrow such a regime, and would have jumped at any chance to kill anyone who opposed them.

Those who are opposing the US and our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan want to go back to the oppressive status-quo, only with themselves in charge weilding ultimate power over everyone else's lives, instead of Saddam or the Taliban. Why do you think they're trying so hard to disrupt the vote? A vote, especially a vote where women are allowed to cast ballots, is like sunlight to those vampires.

You should find an Iraqi or Afghani living in the US and ask him or her about it, and see what they say about these so-called "insurgents."
 
WW2 questionable? Yes! Sadly,the only wars America was involved in that were for Americas interests only, was the Revolution and the War of 1812.We have never been threatened since.And by the way,those 2 were against England.Our allies. WW1,WW2,Malvanas Is.(Falklands)We bailed those trouble makers out every time.Talk about learning from history. WW2? Heck,Germany had trouble crossing the channel. The big Pond? Get real. Bankers',special interest groups,' armament makers,etc. are the ONLY ones to profit or gain. War is Hell. But war pays. A lot of young Americans have died for naught ,and continue to do so.
 
Drawing moral equivalence between Americans in Iraq and the brutal oppression of the Taliban and Saddam really has me wondering about the calibration of your moral compass.

Step back, clear your mind and think about things a little abstractly, there's some shades of gray between the black and white of the text. You know exactly what I meant, so try not to twist it around like those dirty liberal news media types would.

where my sisters and daughters were forbidden to be seen in public or to learn to read,

The thread is about Iraq, stick with it. If you believe you are, learn some facts. We'll get there in a moment...

Those who are opposing the US and our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan

Ever notice how the world and a significate portion of the US didn't stand up and howl when the US forces invaded Afghanistan?

Because while its still abhorrent to someone who believes in peace, at least the Taliban really did do all those horrible things with real, honest-to-God terrorists and al Queda and bin Laden and all of that.

I don't like that it had to be done, but I understand Afghanistan far better than Iraq. Don't confuse the point, don't throw up the smoke screen and don't twist words. Again, this thread is about Iraq.

Why do you think they're trying so hard to disrupt the vote? A vote, especially a vote where women are allowed to cast ballots, is like sunlight to those vampires.

AAAAH yes, here we are! You don't know anything about Iraq except what you've chosen to pay attention to, do you? It took me 1 web search and about 30 seconds to turn this page up:

http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/women_iraq.html

Let's take a look, shall we?

Iraqi women traditionally have enjoyed more rights, even under the Saddam regime, than women in the surrounding Arab countries. Now with the possibility of a Muslim conservative regime gaining power, Iraqi women are worried that their hard-won rights will be taken away.

Wow!

In 1970, under Saddam’s secular Baath party, the constitution declared all women and men equal under the law, according to a BBC article on March 31, 2003.

Hmm.. Wait a second.. This makes no sense, I mean, those Ay-raabs hate the ladies, right?

Labor shortages during the ’70s and ’80s caused the government to hire more women.

YEah, in the salt mines, right?!?

uring the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s and the 1991 Gulf War, women held many of the jobs left by male soldiers. Many of the soldiers did not come back, making women-headed families more common in Iraq, according to an online Women’s E-news article.

Oh. But.. well, they still can't be seen on the streets, right, except in those burkas!

During that peak time of women’s rights, some women walked down the streets in mini-skirts,

That's a progressive burka, eh?

Look, I've proven my point, but not all of them. Go ahead, read that article and you'll find all sorts of things about honor killing women, how rights were scaled back, and all of that. (Edited to add:) It wasn't a place where I'd want to be a woman, at least not a western woman. I'm sure it could be horrible, and I'm sure as times went on and more and more people turned to their faith, and Islam is the predominate faith, it was awfully brutal for women.(Done editing, somehow this doesn't seem right, either, but its the best I'll do til TFL hires on a editor to clean up my copy)

It could be a terrible place, and it was run by someone that even this dirty liberal peacenik can only describe as a dictator, but on the other hand when you compare Iraq to its fellow countries you find that you had a surprisingly open-minded, advanced, and liberal (that's the good liberal, my Trotskite readers, not the capital L style hippies) towards its population.

Realize, Iraq is going to be a dictatiorship. It always will be. It can never be anything but. That's what happens when someone from an "advanced" country believes they know what's best and artificially binds a group of highly divergent tribes and religious people together.
 
Last edited:
I don't like that it had to be done, but I understand Afghanistan far better than Iraq. Don't confuse the point, don't throw up the smoke screen and don't twist words. Again, this thread is about Iraq.

The war in Trashcanistan gave the banksters an oil pipeline and that part of the opium belt.

Isn't it alarming how American soldiers were massing in Tajikistan before 9/11?

No, shame on us for stooping to their* level.

Exactly. And for the dim bulbs out there who support torture, perhaps we should believe the confessions that are beaten out of our pilots as well?

Saddam's evil because he tortures! This terrorist suspect needs to be tortured!
 
Back
Top