NEED Quick help! Why did we go into Iraq?

Reason for "Iraqi Freedom"?

I found a report a while back on the Fox News web site. It is at www.husseinandterror.com. It's basically about Saddam Hussein's contributions to terrorism. Some of them include money, training, medical care, or a place to hide. From what I experienced eight months ago when I was there, we need to be there. I met alot of Iraqi people who are glad we are there. These aren't the people the media are quoting to fit their story. These are the everyday people just wanting to work and support their family. I've seen how most of the Iraqis live, while there are palaces everywhere you look in Baghdad, built for Husseins cronies, and off limits to the general population. The coalition found a MIG fighter jet burried in the Iraqi dessert, how do we know there aren't chemical weapons buried out there? Chemical weapons were found during the invasion, just not the "stockpiles" we were looking for. I wish I could give you all the reasons I think we should be there. It's just something you have to see for yourself.
 
We all know Saddam payed the families of suicide bombers who had their homes demolished by the Israeli's. I'm sure there are chemical weapons buried out there in the desert somewhere, but that doesn't justify the war in the least. Who's to say they haven't found any and are just waiting to roll them out when they need a morale or public support boost for their next staged war? I'm sure they can come up with some old crap of their own to flash before the cameras anyways.
 
gfen,

Perhaps I missed it. I read this thread twice.

Are you actually turning a blind eye towards a country whose dictator terrorized and regularly totured sixty percent of his own population?

Are you actually saying that anyone who loses a war to the US, signs a 'peace treaty' and then breaks every tenet to be a reputable government?

Maybe I missed where you acknowledged all the BAD things that Iraq did to other Arab countries.

Did I miss where you mentioned their seven (eight?) year war with Iran? Which they started and finally lost? Even after using ALL SORTS of chemical and biological weapons against Iranian troops?

Just curious.
 
[QUOTE[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?[/QUOTE]This has never been a real reason for the US to go to war. We avoided WWII like crazy until it was forced upon us, when the threat was much more imminent to our allies. Hitler had a long term plan to invade the US after securing Europe and Africa and had concentration camps, but we were not moved to act.
Most, if not all, of the petty dictators we supported during the Cold War killed civilian dissenters, but we just gave them more money.

If the way Saddam treated his people was a reason to invade, isn't that an even better reason to invade North Korea?
If it is a WMD issue, why not North Korea? They have working reactors, purification equiptment, and fissionable material in quantity. Say 'China' all you want, but China isn't thrilled with having a loose cannon across their border.

Not saying that Saddam was right or good in any way, but we are highly selective about the evils we deal with.
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.
Click to expand...
I got sick of hearing this when Clinton was president. It was especially loud when we went into the former Yugoslavia. :rolleyes:
Bush's (Rove's) election strategy was purposefully divisive. People should stop because he wants it to stop?
Oil?...yeah it's quite obvious from the price of fuel lately that we're really cashing in on the oil.
Click to expand...
'We' does not always include you and me. Sometimes it is just big buisness. If you look at 'Us' profiting, you need to look more specifically. I am not arguing with your statement, just that the benifit may not be intended for everybody.
shame on us for treating those nice terrorists like that!
Click to expand...
Dispenses nicely with moral or ethical highground. Maybe more trouble than it was worth. Now if we would just stop claiming it.
You do things the right way or you don't. Are there degrees of wrong? Yes. Should people be happy we are doing ethical accounting? I hope not.
I have a lot of feeling it won't because maybe the mass of folks there do hate our way of life
Click to expand...
I have a feeling, perhaps mistaken, that most people don't care about our way of life as long as they don't have to deal with it. It makes for a nice propaganda statement though. I think people look at our material wealth, look at their lack of it, and wonder why they don't have more of it. I think the oil rich nations especially have poor people looking at all that oil leaving and wonder why their share of the wealth is so small.
Are there economic reasons for this? Yes, but like the average person everywhere I doubt they look that deeply.
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?
Click to expand...
#1 - Soldiers of every nation are told they are fighting for a good cause. I think for the most part they believe it. This does not make the real reasons a country is at war any better.
 
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Click to expand...

Yes gfen, lets all be happy go lucky! Lets be tolerant of the behavior and
ideas of others! Lets be broad minded!

Now with that being said, we have to be tolerant of others behavior and
ideas, so don't you go persecuting those poor lonely pedophiles, molesting
your kids! We MUST be liberal! We must be TOLERANT of others BEHAVIOR
and IDEAS! Don't go persecuting that sorry old drunk who got behind the
wheel and killed your family members! We MUST be TOLERANT of his
BEHAVIOR and IDEAS! Don't persecute that crack addict who robbed and
stabbed your kid to death for his next fix! We MUST be TOLERANT of his
BEHAVIOR and IDEAS. Don't you DARE persecute the guy torturing and
enslaving innocent people! Destroying their little frail bodies in ways even
Quenten Tarentino can't dream up! We MUST be TOLERANT of his BEHAVIOR
and IDEAS.....and on and on......see how REDICULOUS that sounds?
Probably not..............

Remember, I stuck STRICTLY BY THE BOOK with YOUR OWN CHOSEN
DEFINITION of LIBERAL......so..........can you still look in the mirror liberal?
 
I can see why you left the question mark on that one.
Click to expand...

Yea, I was thinking more along the lines of the Iraq staged event, since our government seems content on ignoring real threats when there's a profit to be made. But honestly, could we expect anything else from them? It's in their nature.
 
Are you actually turning a blind eye towards a country whose dictator terrorized and regularly totured sixty percent of his own population?
Click to expand...

If that's what you think, sure.

Maybe I missed where you acknowledged all the BAD things that Iraq did to other Arab countries.
Click to expand...

S'funny, all those Arab countries that Iraq has wronged... They're not sending people to help out that there coalition. You think they would, I mean, all those bad things, right?

Oh, wait. Did you mean Kuwait? The one that was to be considered a "border dispute" by the US Dept of State under Bush Sr, and our government had assured Hussein that we wouldn't sweat it?

That's a neat little story, here's a handy link:
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim4.shtml

There's lots more stuff out there on that little story, go peruse Google a bit.

Did I miss where you mentioned their seven (eight?) year war with Iran?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, should I have mentioned that war? I mean, it was fermented by the US, as well. Hussein was, after all, our dictator then. We liked him because he was willing to fight against Iran's current theocracy because, afterall, the Ayatollah had overthrown their previous dictator, the Shah, who, as you should know, was also one of our dictators.

Which they started and finally lost?
Click to expand...

This is exceptionally important, but because of where we're going..I clearly remember around the time of Desert Sheild/Storm being told how the Iraqi army was one of the largest in the world, and how feared the Republican Guard was, and all sorts of other stories about how dangerous Iraq was (then, at least).

Then you tell me about an 8 year war with Iraq (feared superpowerful army, right?) and Iran that Iraq lost.

Think about that next time you read up on invasion of Iran. This entire segment is obfusticating the details on our current morass, though. ;)

[/quote]
Even after using ALL SORTS of chemical and biological weapons against Iranian troops?[/quote]

You mean the ones we sold him?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

Dunno, when I read my entires I think its pretty clear where I'm coming from. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I feel the USA has invaded a soverign nation and commited an act of overt war.

The United States is becoming what I was always told we detest, an aggressive, militaristic police state. What I see sounds frighteningly what I was told the USSR was like when I was growing up in 80's.

This is not the fault of any terrorist, its the fault of the American people for letting it happen.
 
We went into Iraq to settle the question of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam lied on many occasions, kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and stole money from the oil for food program. We had an agreement that he would verifiably destroy the weapons, and he did not.

We went into Iraq, because Saddam Husseins troops were firing at planes that were patrolling the no-fly zone.

We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush assasinated.

He ignored a dozen UN resolutions against him, as well as the post war treaty that he agreed to after Desert Storm.
 
Another point on the WMDs

A lot people are asking, "If he really had WMDs, then where are they?" And I think that is an important question that we should all be asking. "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?"

According to Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Al Gore, as well as Senator Kennedy, he had weapons of mass destruction. There are several UN resolutions that state very clearly that he has weapons of mass destruction. The best intelligence of Israel, Britan, and USA show that there are WMDs in Iraq. Now the WMDs are either gone or dissapeared. That is what we are there for, we need to know 100% if they are there. Saddam did not comply with the resolutions, and now we have to check for ourselves.

It was stated many times that one of the biggest fears of Iraq having WMDs is that they can give them to terrorists, now the weapons are gone. Perhaps we are too late. Maybe the years of sanctions has convinced Saddam to sell to terrorists to make money. Maybe Bush isnt wrong, but he is just too late.
 
WWII was questionable?
Click to expand...

Everyone likes to blame Chamberlain and other political leaders for the appeasement that allowed Hitler to grow into the terrible thing he became. But they were in large part reacting to the will of the people. They were bombarded with letters from mothers and others who had memories of a not-too-distant WWI, and did NOT want to be dragged into another war. The social "tone" of Europe at the time was largely "anti-war" at all costs. If Europe had acted against Hitler more promptly, would lives have been saved?
Same thing with the US. While we "supported" our European allies, in particular the British, with arms and other materials, we stayed out of the war largely because Americans did not support getting involved over there. Had we acted more promptly, would lives have been saved?
It's a crystal ball question, I understand. But sometimes when we look back at a war, in hindsight it seems so black and white. But none of them ever are.
In a related note, I saw a special (history channel?) some time ago, in which they referenced the fact that during WWII, our government actually hired memebers of the Mafia to come and interrogate Nazi prisoners to try and gain information. I'm not defending the recent issue of prisoner "torture" but once again, these are not new issues, and no war has ever been without questionable elements.
 
bountyh - thanks

Thanks for your info... I wish you the best and your wife a safe and quick return to you and your family.

When I said that I bet not 1% of the troops wanted to be there....I meant just that. I understand the honor and duty part very well. When it comes to going to a dangerous place with a high threat on losing limb or life and a constant nagging danger around every corner... - I think 1% of the troops would say "oh yea" I love to go there..... Please don't read too far into it. I think so much more of the troops than I could ever try to explain in text here. I just continue to pray for the future peace of Iraq to be a little less distant. I have faith that the *1344+ service members that gave their life to better the world - made a most patriotic unspeakable contribution. It is something that those whom never served or don't have family that serve don't understand the same way as we do. It's not to put them down but just elevate those who know what altimate sacrifice is... Thank you- never meant so much.........as it does today.

God Bless America :)


*Number of US forces is from Pentagon (CNN) 1-25-05
 
gfen,

I WAS going to answer all your points. But then I figured, NAH, this guy just doesn't get it.

Thanks for your repsonse though. You might want to go back and REREAD this whole thread, as your answers are EXACTLY what you claim every one who disagrees with you. NO SUBSTANCE.
 
Charley,

Your position seems to be that if we had fought the Nazis earlier, we wouldn't have had to fight the Nazis. Does that make sense to you?


That wouldn't have changed what was going on in Asia, either.
 
Besides, the US has a tendency to fight multiple war fronts ONLY when forced to. WWII is a good example.

We have 'pacified' Iraq. I personally believe SYRIA is next (which includes Lebanon - where we will find all those missing WMDS - in the Bekaa Valley). Iran will follow shortly after that. THEN and only then will we face N. Korea (who is actually China's lap dog). We did NOT invade N. Vietnam BECAUSE we didn't want to get into it with China.

Has that viewpoint changed somehow in the past thirty five years? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
 
Simply because, Derius, I won't allow myself to be so easily baited.

Wallew, I'd have looked forward to a point-by-point answering of my statements, after all, I've got an liberally open (look, I couldn't pass it up) mind but I guess that's not to be.

Oh well, plus ca change.
 
Yes gfen, lets all be happy go lucky! Lets be tolerant of the behavior and ideas of others! Lets be broad minded!

Now with that being said, we have to be tolerant of others behavior and
ideas, so don't you go persecuting those poor lonely pedophiles, molesting
your kids! We MUST be liberal! We must be TOLERANT of others BEHAVIOR
and IDEAS! Don't go persecuting that sorry old drunk who got behind the
wheel and killed your family members! We MUST be TOLERANT of his
BEHAVIOR and IDEAS! Don't persecute that crack addict who robbed and
stabbed your kid to death for his next fix! We MUST be TOLERANT of his
BEHAVIOR and IDEAS. Don't you DARE persecute the guy torturing and
enslaving innocent people! Destroying their little frail bodies in ways even
Quenten Tarentino can't dream up! We MUST be TOLERANT of his BEHAVIOR
and IDEAS.....and on and on......
Click to expand...

Thats baiting you? According to the definition THAT YOU POSTED, all the
above falls exactly within your definition......whats the matter, can't face the
fact that 'liberal' views CAN be interpreted like this, or that they already
HAVE? ;)
 
Your position seems to be that if we had fought the Nazis earlier, we wouldn't have had to fight the Nazis. Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...

The Nazi Nightmare did not happen overnight. The world stood by when Hitler openly defied the Treaty of Versailles; stood by as he built up a massive army from next to nothing; stood by when he stationed troops in the Rheinland; stood by when he "annexed" Austria; stood by when he took over Czechoslovakia. If Europe, with America's aid, had confronted him when he initially broke the treaty and began military build-up...the death toll could have been a fraction of what it turned out to be. I think it could be argued that millions could have been saved.
 
WWII was questionable?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Don't believe for a minute that NAZI's could have risen to their height of power without the backing of the international bankster elite. They funded both sides during the war.

It's amazing how many WWII pilots have claimed that they weren't able to bomb factorys owned by GE and Ford. The banksters stand to gain alot of money from protracted wars. And then there's the old NAZI wh0re Prescott Bush who was arrested under the Trading With The Enemy Act for selling the NAZI's huge amounts of steel.

Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack on Dec. 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top