Why are we in Iraq?

M

MacGille

New member
OK I am about to open a can of worms here. If the President of the United States is supposed to do things for the good of the country, what good are we getting from the oppression of the Iraqi people? The issue of WMD which was the ostensible reason for the invasion is moot. There aren't any. I think it was a red herring to draw in front of congress to get them to give him the authorization to go in there. Once Sadddam was captured and his spawn were killed, our reason to be there evaporated. We should have left then. Iraq is for the Iraqi's, and they should be responsible for their own government. The U.S. has a terrible record in the interference with the middle East. They WILL have their civil war when we leave. regardless of what government is in posistion.

Just as Iran had theirs when the religious fanatics got tired of U.S. interference with Iran. This is not a popular position with right wingers, but even Dr. Paul sees the error in our position regarding the Middle East. We Americans need to take our own blinders off regarding the rights of other nations. We are NOT the regulators of the world. If we could solve our own problems here i.e. Illegal aliens stealing our country. Drug smuggling on a global scale. Our deteriorating roads, etc. We would be in better shape.

Iraq will eventually have the government they deserve despite our efforts. We should get out of there, and repair the damage to our Armed forces caused by Clinton and his cronies. Our ability to defend our shores is in pitiful shape now. We are using up our National guard in Iraq and there is nothing to replace them with.

The war on terror should be handled by Spec ops and congress not the President. Only congress has the power to declare war and they have the oversight of all policy. We should take an extremely hard line on smugglers. People and drugs. Death for any smuggler would be about right. Our borders need to be controlled,BY US. Not the smugglers. OK fire away.
 
I'm currently deployed (for the second time) over in Iraq as I write this. And to tell you the truth, I feel the same way that you do. I honestly don't see us doing any good over here. As you stated, most of the fighting over here is the local's in their civil war. Once we finally do pull out, they will continue their civil war....we are not going to stop that. I've been in for going on 11 years now and after this, I've decided I'm getting out. I just don't agree with being over here when we have our own problems in the states that we need to be working on first. How can we help another country (that doesn't want to be helped) if we can't fix ourselves?
 
Why are we in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Just like getting to the center of a Tootsie Pop; The world will never know.

Honestly; where is Saddam when you need him? He had stuff under control, like it or not. Yes he was a tyrant, yes he was megalomaniac, yes he killed people. But if you add how many people (our soldiers +civilians+insurgents) have currently been killed in Iraqi Freedom to the number that will be killed when the full blown civil war erupts, I would not be surprised if it will be more than twice the number that dies during his reign.

And how are we safer? We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? Where is Bin Laden? How is Al quaeda still functioning? Why didn't we invade Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran instead of Iraq? How will we know if we won the war on terror? What is a war on terror? Why aren't airports any safer now than they were in 2001? Why is the border with Mexico wide open? Aren't Republicans supposed to be best at security (lol)? What happened to Habeas Corpus? Why are we loosing our freedoms? Isn't this what Bin Laden and Muslim extremists wanted in the first place? :rolleyes:

But as they say: You reap what you sow. You put Dubya in power twice; so you face the consequences.
 
So in ten years there can be a McDonald's, Starbucks and Pizza Hut on every street corner in Baghdad. It's not to spread "democracy" or freedom, it's to spread capitalism. It's about the money.

Unfortunately there are some studies that show a large percentage of the troops there actually believe they're there in response to Saddam's role in 9/11. :rolleyes: Sad, so sad.
 
I originally posted this more than two years ago...

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
 
Why are we in Iraq?
Click to expand...

I heard this morning on 700 WLW "The Nations Station" that we are in Iraq to keep them from coming over here. I say that's totally BS. To be honest with you, the best way to get us out of Iraq is to launch some terror attacks in America. Terror attacks at home would be certain to cause the our troops to return home to protect our soil.

If I've thought of it, I'm sure those in Iraq have thought of it. If Iraq/Iran/Insurgants had the the resources to pull it off, they would have already done it. That makes being there to keep it over there total BS. The 9/11 crowd may buy into it but I don't. I think most of the US doesn't buy into it any more either.

I'm not really sure why we are in Iraq. If its oil. Fine. Take the country over and stop with the lies.

If it's to avenge Daddy, impeach the man in office. If its because he has a direct line to God and is doing God's will, impeach him and then lock him away, in a padded room, forever.

I wish I knew why we were really over there but I fear that the war on terror and spreading democracy isn't the real reason. 9/11 certainly isn't it.

Whatever the case, God bless our troops. I think we all respect the job they are doing and I hope we all think of them each day. I know as the death toll mounts, I look at the flag flying in my yard a little harder every day.
 
I wish more people felt the way that yall do. Personally, I've felt that this was a needless war from day one. Afganistan i understood, but this mess in Iraq... I dont even know why we're there. My personal openion is that it was George W's personal vendetta to do what his daddy didnt finish. Something childish as that.
 
If anybody ever figures out a better answer to this question than TheBluesMan gave, let me know. Because I'd like to think I didn't waste a year of my life and watch others waste the rest of their lives for that.
 
I hear Ya JuanCarlos. I too, have wasted a portion of my life in Iraq. A year and a half so far, with more to come.

What were our goals? To oust Saddam Hussein and allow Iraq to become a democracy. Both goals accomplished.

So, I say, it's time to leave. If our government truly wants democracy in Iraq..they need to be prepared for the eventuality that the Iraqis will democratically elect a fundamentalist, Islamic state.

Of course, then we'll have to scratch our heads and ask if the Iraqis will then truly be better of than they were under Saddam.
 
I honestly think they were better off under sadam. He may have had his problems.. well, lots of them, but he more or less kept everything under control over there.
 
I am sick we got off of taking Osama Out it pisses me off badly.

I would love to see the troops given a break and depolyed to the US board and to afganistan. get the bastard that did 9/11 and stop the empire building.

what alot are missing is the Religious implications in Iraq.
Christian Evangelical Belief in prophecy of kicking off Armageddon and bring about the second coming the lord.

satanist want to rebuild Babylon and rekindle world government.
as if the European Parliament Building wasnt enough. nor the united nations.

USA went into Iraq citing what resolutions? United Nations Resolutions.

Now the US is building the biggest embassy ever in Iraq.

2008 Terrorist or Tryants. NEITHER!
No More Authoritarians Using The Politics Of Fear
VOTE FREEDOM,LIBERTY AND TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!
 
Okay we are there. Whatever the reasons, we are there now.

How to make the world a better place then it is now?

A free and democratic Iraq would be good, freedom of the people to complain, write editiorials about thier leaders, get information from outside sources so they can compare and contrast what is going on. Freedom to demonstrate in the streets and call thier leaders fat heads or whatever.

Not a clone of our country because that could never happen, they have thier own identity and history.

I personally believe people are the same around the world, they want to live a good life, give their kids a little bit better than they had it and sit down and watch football on Sunday (weather it be a pigskin or a round white ball with black dots) If you want that then why would Iraqi people not want that.

Have we given them that chance to get that for themselves? Yeah I think so, (things were better under Saddam, not for the average joe you knucklehead, people say we live in a police state here in the US, what a bunch of Horse S they lived in a police state)

But as long as Saddam was in power any time anyone looked to be even a small threat or have any leadership ability and against him, he would have them killed. He has been draining the Good Men, for a long time over there. (and maybe the few that were co-oped into his regime, are/were banned from being in positions of power after we invaded. That has since be recognized as a Mistake.)

When we started our goverment here we had the John Adams, the Ben Franklins, the Jeffersons and so forth, but what if George Washington had killed all those men after the Article of Confederation had been drafted and he had taken power, and kept it, this country would be a very different place. Saddam took the good strong and honorable men and killed and tortured them just to remain in power.

Most of the insurgenence is being fueled from outside the country (partially due to the vacum of leadership Saddam created, see my argument above), and do I believe the leadership is doing a good job? no I do not, but are we trying our best? Maybe. Are our intentions honorable and good? yes I believe they are.

Will we succeed, I hope and pray that some day the Iraqi people stand on thier own, and if that day come with the grace of God, I do believe they will be thanking the US.


Oh and by the way MacGille who do you think hold the leash of Spec Ops, I will give you a guess, it ain't the Congress, the Judiacy or my Aunt Matilda. As for Congress running the war, well they don't have the Title Commander and Chief now do they, they write law they don't lead. Say what you will about W. I believe he leads by conviction, not polls. He told everyone very soon after September 11, this would take a long time, Amercia I believe has lost a lot of heart over the years, luckily this President still has a backbone. You can call him dumb or whatever but he is at least taking a stand, on this issue. (I just wish he would communicate and tell more of the good things going on, but people probably wouldn't listen anyways, and he is probalby tired of saying it, his mistake)


We have been pushed by the Islamic Terrorist for long enough, going back the taking of Embassy in Tehran, and the bombing of the Marine Barrack, not to mention scores of other incidents, I for one am glad we are taking the fight to them. They hate us (the US) and would given a chance kill everyone of us that did not convert, does it matter the reason, does it matter weather it is because of the freedom we have, or the TV/Movie/Music we export to the rest of the world, does it matter if it is because we look out for our own intrests (even though we go about it sometimes in a warped and stupid way). They HATE us.

I have stood in my uniform on the front lines, I still stand on the lines upholding the laws of this country trying to keep neighborhoods safe. But I am tired of us just reacting, I am glad we are taking the fight to them. I wish we would put up fences, I wish we would stop the flow of drugs. But I am glad we are in Iraq and as painful as it, is I believe in the long run, it will be a good thing.

I also found Bluesman's logic quiet compelling.
(I will not get off my soap box, my head is spinning and my ranting is concluded for the night :eek: I wrote all that, what an idiot)
 
WeedWacker said:
BluesMan: So according to what you are saying, Saddam just ended up with the short straw?
Click to expand...
Nothing so near to chance as that, WeedWacker. It was an informed decision and a logical one. Note in my list of six criteria that WMDs and 9/11 ties are absent. Those two reasons had nothing to do with invading Iraq regardless of what GWB says.

The war with Iraq was and is very important. If we want to continue our way of life here in the U.S., we must win. If we want to assure freedom and tranquility for our allies, we must win. If we leave now, or even pull out in the next 4-6 years, Iraq will fall into civil war. Islamic radicals love to kill Americans, but killing other islamic radicals is a close second. The spread of terrorism will increase exponentially if civil war in Iraq becomes reality. And it won't respect any borders - it never does.

During the Vietnam War, there were more American soldiers in Germany than were in Vietnam. Our current leaders (especially the democrats) seem to have forgotten that reconstruction takes much longer than destruction. We need to stay in Iraq for the long haul or all the sacrifices made by our best young men and women will be in vain. The dems never had the tripa for it and it seems that the reps don't have the huevos for it anymore.

Unfortunately, I forsee an early pull-out of American troops followed by a bloody civil war that spills into at least one adjacent country. Throw in a nuclear Iran and things get real tricky real fast. Then we'll have some very difficult decisions to make. 3,000 dead American civilians and 3,000 dead troops will seem like nothing compared to what will happen if we pull out early. Our enemy will be emboldened and will come at us on our own turf again. Like TwoXForr says - take the fight to them!
 
If I've thought of it, I'm sure those in Iraq have thought of it. If Iraq/Iran/Insurgants [sic] had the the resources to pull it off, they would have already done it. That makes being there to keep it over there total BS. The 9/11 crowd may buy into it but I don't. I think most of the US doesn't buy into it any more either.
Click to expand...

If the insurgents had the resources they would attack us. The reason that they don't have the resources is because we're over in the Mideast killing them left and right.
 
You can kill all the gators you want, but until you drain the swamp and take away thier place to live, they are going to keep crawling out and eating the family pet.

(Well at least it was shorter than my last post). :p
 
If we want to continue our way of life here in the U.S., we must win.
Click to expand...
Win what exactly? Will we get a letter saying: "Hey you won the war; Grats"?

3,000 dead American civilians and 3,000 dead troops will seem like nothing compared to what will happen if we pull out early. Our enemy will be emboldened and will come at us on our own turf again. Like TwoXForr says - take the fight to them!
Click to expand...

What will happen if we pull out early? You mean they will start killing each other? I thought they were killing us and themselves pretty efficiently right now. Taking a line from Bill Maher; your predictions since the war started have ALL BEEN WRONG; why should the public trust you again this time?

And since when did Team America: World Police become a reality? Hell why don't we invade China? They have "bad dudes" in power y'know? How about North Korea too? That lil'kim sure is a nut job and he oppresses the people; Y'know sorta like Saddam did. Our enemy is pretty emboldened right now. We ain't exactly "winning" over there. I mean do you REALLY thik we can outlast them over there? Jesus Christ THEY LIVE THERE! They can wait forever. They can keep on killing our troops forever. Every day spent over there makes their recruiting pool bigger.

This war is FUBAR. Open your eyes.
 
What will happen if we pull out early? You mean they will start killing each other? I thought they were killing us and themselves pretty efficiently right now. Taking a line from Bill Maher; your predictions since the war started have ALL BEEN WRONG; why should the public trust you again this time?

And since when did Team America: World Police become a reality? Hell why don't we invade China? They have "bad dudes" in power y'know? How about North Korea too? That lil'kim sure is a nut job and he oppresses the people; Y'know sorta like Saddam did. Our enemy is pretty emboldened right now. We ain't exactly "winning" over there. I mean do you REALLY thik we can outlast them over there? Jesus Christ THEY LIVE THERE! They can wait forever. They can keep on killing our troops forever. Every day spent over there makes their recruiting pool bigger.

This war is FUBAR. Open your eyes.
Click to expand...

You sound like "fellow travelers" of the 1930s who believed so much in the evils of capitalism and the eventual undeniable right of communism that they threw all their weight behind the Soviet Union. It took trillions upon trillions of dollars and nearly a century to defeat that menace (a globally expanionist one that publicly declared war on us and our way of life), and yet you seem to think that because the same thing hasn't been accomplished in four years in Iraq that we should just give up and go home?

I for one am sick and tired of the Chicken Little's who have cried "failure!" since before the war started. They are no more mature or informed than Little League players telling their teammates "we're going to lose" in the second inning.

The BluesMan and TwoXForr both gave excellent responses as to why we went after Saddam. Such rationales do not apply to China (which while economically expansionist is not a massive state supporter of terrorism nor an oil-producing, Muslim, centrally located Middle Eastern state) nor North Korea (which while a supporter of terrorism and producer of WMDs is such a bankrupt power that they can do neither effectively, and is not an oil-producing, Muslim, centrally located Middle Eastern state). Further, the UN has not passed resolution after resolution allowing for the potential use of force against China or North Korea in the same manner that they did in the Balkans, Africa, or Iraq.

The Balkans were the home of massive genocide, but because the parties were more interested in killing each other (and were smart enough to realize they could start again more quietly once peacekeepers left) no one really cared that US troops went there. Does that mean that if US troops had been attacked while trying to save civilians that we should have just given up and left like the Dutch did? Africa (Rwanda, Sudan, Ivory Coast, etc.) has seen the deaths of millions of civilians and combatants, and tens of thousands of peacekeepers, but no one cares because US troops haven't been killed. Does that mean that if US troops had been there, and taken casualties, that we should have left and let the slaughter continue? Saddam Hussein was a monster who was executed after being convicted of genocide, and he ruled on precariously over a country constantly on the brink of civil war. We did the right thing in taking him out, but how would it be the right thing simply to abandon the country so that the opposing sides can slaughter each other in the streets?
 
The BluesMan and TwoXForr both gave excellent responses as to why we went after Saddam
Click to expand...

Ok... When the president made the case for war; did he mention we were going in because we needed to "free" the iraqui people? Was it not, that we were going in because of "WMD", "mushroom cloud", the "Niger Plutonium buy"? How many of the mentioned reasons turned out to be true?

Such rationales do not apply to China (which while economically expansionist is not a massive state supporter of terrorism nor an oil-producing, Muslim, centrally located Middle Eastern state)
Click to expand...

Ok... In one or two or three paragraphs; Make the connection between 911, Saddam, Iraq, Bin Laden and Alquaeda. Explain how
oil-producing, Muslim, centrally located Middle Eastern state
Click to expand...
is a reason for invading a country.

Africa (Rwanda, Sudan, Ivory Coast, etc.) has seen the deaths of millions of civilians and combatants, and tens of thousands of peacekeepers, but no one cares because US troops haven't been killed. Does that mean that if US troops had been there, and taken casualties, that we should have left and let the slaughter continue?
Click to expand...

Ok... Using your same rationale; Why then, have we not intervened in Africa where MILLIONS of people are dying right now; places like Darfur for example. Also explain how Saddam's genocide is different from African genocide.
 
Ok... When the president made the case for war; did he mention we were going in because we needed to "free" the iraqui people? Was it not, that we were going in because of "WMD", "mushroom cloud", the "Niger Plutonium buy"? How many of the mentioned reasons turned out to be true?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. George W. Bush could have stood up and said "he tried to kill my daddy so I'm gonna take him out" and overthrowing him still would have been the right thing to do, both morally and geopolitically. However, since you (like everyone else these days) seem to conveniently ignore that fact that there were more reasons stated than "WMD", here's a nice quote from Powell's UN speech:

"Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified, is Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this Council, his contempt for the truth, and, most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities. Five thousand men, women and children died. His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing and ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of some 2,000 villages.

He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country -- tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him."

Of course, that's far from the only time that such things were mentioned. The overthrow of the Hussein regime was clearly articulated during the Clinton administration with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (US Public Law 105-338); while some of the stated reasons for the act were WMD, others were his military actions against his neighbors and his cruelties against his own people. The UN even had resolutions condemning his conduct back into the 80s and no country had the guts to do anything about it. All a matter of record going back two decades...but again, I don't really expect you to put any stock in facts when it's so much more convenient to cry "lies and failure".

Ok... In one or two or three paragraphs; Make the connection between 911, Saddam, Iraq, Bin Laden and Alquaeda. Explain how "oil-producing, Muslim, centrally located Middle Eastern state"
is a reason for invading a country.
Click to expand...

Why? So you can ignore it like you ignored The BluesMan's post? He's already explained all of that pretty clearly.

Ok... Using your same rationale; Why then, have we not intervened in Africa where MILLIONS of people are dying right now; places like Darfur for example. Also explain how Saddam's genocide is different from African genocide.
Click to expand...

Who said we shouldn't? Whether it's Balkan genocide, African genocide, or Iraqi genocide...they're all genocide. Morally they're equivalent. Politically, though, intervening in Darfur does not send the same signal to Islamofascists that intervening in Iraq does...and because we cannot intervene everywhere the lives and dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan make more sense in than lives and dollars spent elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top