Why are we in Iraq?
- Thread starter MacGille
- Start date
It would be inhumane to just pick up and leave as many people in this country want to do. But the sheep that they are will always follow without thinking.
You think the the bombings, killings are bad now it would be a slaughterhouse over there between the sunnis and shiites and al queda battling for control if we left. Second with nothing but terrorists over there vying for control you have now just gave the terrorists a country to set up shop in.
IMO that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is b/c of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists are all traveling to Iraq to fight us there b/c it is alot easier to get there than to get here. Basically it's an "away game", hopefully it never becomes a home game.
You think the the bombings, killings are bad now it would be a slaughterhouse over there between the sunnis and shiites and al queda battling for control if we left. Second with nothing but terrorists over there vying for control you have now just gave the terrorists a country to set up shop in.
IMO that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is b/c of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists are all traveling to Iraq to fight us there b/c it is alot easier to get there than to get here. Basically it's an "away game", hopefully it never becomes a home game.
JuanCarlos
New member
A) It's also possible that the magic rock I bought on 9/12 is what has prevented further terrorist attacks. Correlation and causation and what not (and how common were foreign terror attacks on US soil before 9/11?).
B) That "away game" attitude is the exact reason I'm voting with my feet. Somebody else or their kids can go play bomb magnet, I took my turn. I thought I signed up for the military to actually fight our enemies, not play decoy for a bunch of scared sheep.
There is nothing stopping any terrorists from coming here right now. All they have to do is sneak across our wide-open borders and do their thing. It would be a lot easier for them to attack civilians here than to fight the US military in Iraq.
I do support continuing the search for Osama, but the Iraq war was based entirely on lies. Iraq was invaded because the neocons of the PNAC wanted to use the US to fight for Israel. I just wrote a long post on that here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2362943&postcount=38
Slugthrower posted some great stuff, and he also pointed out that following the money can shed a lot of light on our governments actions.
I was also hoping someone would finally mention the "unmentionable" factor in the US war on Iraq--Israel. Nice to see a couple folks here aren't totally clueless.
Iraq is a total disaster with no good end in sight, despite all the wishful thinking of the war supporters. Bush and Blair seem blind to the carnage their invasion and occupation have unleashed, congratulating themselves last week on bringing "democracy" to Iraq. I'd be willing to bet 95% of Iraqis would gladly go back in time to the bad old days under Sadaam, when if you kept out of politics you at least had a fair chance at a somewhat normal life.
Sometimes a brutal dictator keeps the lid on ethnic hatreds which explode when he is removed. Tito in Yugoslavia, for example.
I find it hard to believe that Cheney, Bush, and thier neocon advisors could be so naive to think the complete disbanding of Iraq's government and army and subsequent occupation by US troops would make for a peaceful easy transition to a US ally. And as for democracy, we are only happy when the right side wins--just look at Hamas' election in Palestine, which Israel and the US refused to tolerate. Why even pretend to support democracy? We are usually quite happy with brutal dictators as long as they do our bidding.
I was also hoping someone would finally mention the "unmentionable" factor in the US war on Iraq--Israel. Nice to see a couple folks here aren't totally clueless.
Iraq is a total disaster with no good end in sight, despite all the wishful thinking of the war supporters. Bush and Blair seem blind to the carnage their invasion and occupation have unleashed, congratulating themselves last week on bringing "democracy" to Iraq. I'd be willing to bet 95% of Iraqis would gladly go back in time to the bad old days under Sadaam, when if you kept out of politics you at least had a fair chance at a somewhat normal life.
Sometimes a brutal dictator keeps the lid on ethnic hatreds which explode when he is removed. Tito in Yugoslavia, for example.
I find it hard to believe that Cheney, Bush, and thier neocon advisors could be so naive to think the complete disbanding of Iraq's government and army and subsequent occupation by US troops would make for a peaceful easy transition to a US ally. And as for democracy, we are only happy when the right side wins--just look at Hamas' election in Palestine, which Israel and the US refused to tolerate. Why even pretend to support democracy? We are usually quite happy with brutal dictators as long as they do our bidding.
EXACTLY. That's why the US and Saddam used to be allies -- Saddam was doing our dirty work. We sure had no problem with him using chemical weapons when he was our loyal friend. It's also why the US government backed Pinochet's rise to power:pitz96 said:
Of course some will say (hopefully not on this board): "Oh, but how can this be? We're the GOOD GUYS! SteelCore, you're just a moonbat libtard America-hater who should be posting at DU!"
But I only point these things out because I despise hypocrisy and lies, especially when they come from the government of the country I love and want to be proud of.Don,
I'm not following your reasoning here at all. If they merely "disagreed" with the case that did not justify the war, they were doing so from the outset; publicly selling the case for war long before they supposedly had "decided".
I mean...if this whole case were weighed in this fashion in a court of law, with the judge giving only the prosecution permission to present their case, threatening the defense attorney with a contempt charge if he didn't shut up... I wouldn't say the judge merely disagreed with the defense. Where I come from, that'd be a mistrial and I'd be interested in knowing exactly why the judge was so hell-bent on prosecuting the defendant. Unfortunately, there is no review process to undo the Iraq war.
And your comment about "classified information" doesn't hold any water either. They certainly had no qualms about divulging the classified information that supported the war.
I'm not following your reasoning here at all. If they merely "disagreed" with the case that did not justify the war, they were doing so from the outset; publicly selling the case for war long before they supposedly had "decided".
I mean...if this whole case were weighed in this fashion in a court of law, with the judge giving only the prosecution permission to present their case, threatening the defense attorney with a contempt charge if he didn't shut up... I wouldn't say the judge merely disagreed with the defense. Where I come from, that'd be a mistrial and I'd be interested in knowing exactly why the judge was so hell-bent on prosecuting the defendant. Unfortunately, there is no review process to undo the Iraq war.
And your comment about "classified information" doesn't hold any water either. They certainly had no qualms about divulging the classified information that supported the war.
DonR101395
New member
Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm not sure which, this war has not been tried in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. There's no mistrial in the court of public opinion and unfortunately in that court you're guilty until proved innocent.
As to the leaks, there were leaks from both sides. And IMO none of the leaks from either side amounted to anything but an embarrassment for both sides.
DesertDawg
New member
HMM! Perhaps some of you folks have forgotten several FACTS!
#1: Saddam Hussein DID, in fact, have WMD's and an on-going research program for nuclear weapons! It is possible or even PROBABLE that, when Saddam was delaying the IAEA inspectors, the massive amounts of WMD materials were being re-located in another country!
#2: Saddam Hussein DID, in fact, violate UN sanctions a total of 17 times! When the Bush administration uncovered the "food for oil" scam, with many of the UN "elitists" involved, it became obvious that the UN (and the IAEA) might have been totally compromised, from pure GREED!
#3: It was "common knowledge" that Saddam Hussein was "payrolling" the Hezbollah and Hamas, and paying "tribute money" to the families of suicide bombers... that just might be classified as "terrorists"?
#4: Within the politicos in the USA, Bill Clinton (when he was still President), Al Gore (still in office as VP), Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and MANY others gave speeches that openly declared that Saddam Hussein had WMD's! As an aside, you have to wonder if we would have invaded Iraq ANYWAY, if Al Gore had won in 2000, or if John Kerry had won in 2004!
#5: Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush had an EXTREMELY high rating in all of the polls! For that matter, the majority of the American people kept on wondering WHEN we would attack, not WHY!
#6: The "fatalistic" aspect within the USA was falsely based on what became "vogue" to say....that the USA had attacked "unilaterally"! It was NOT "unilateral", for there was a total of 32 countries that supplied troops, logistics or intelligence! We were NOT alone, yet the news media kept on hyping the word "unilateral"!
#7: The leftist anti-war organizations "warned" that "hundreds of thousands" of body bags would be filled with American troops! It sounded like even those organizations BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, and would use them!
#8: If the invasion of Iraq was all about the oil, then WHY are we seeing such high gasoline prices right now? I'm not sure of what the price of gas is in Iraq at the moment, but it was a whopping 12-cents per gallon not too long ago.....because THEY are using THEIR oil!
#9: We've "lost" the war, or it's "un-winnable"? Well, if the FACTS are correct, 16 of the 17 Iraqi provinces are relatively peaceful right now! The "insurgency" seems to be centralized, mostly within Baghdad! Maybe the news media folks, who RARELY venture out of the "green zone", aren't exactly reporting the TRUE story?
#10: ....And, I just GOTTA use this one, since it has become so popular with the lefties: The invasion of Iraq was....."For the children"! Perhaps if/when Iraq is able to stand on its own feet and become "democratic", they won't feed the children into the "suicide bomber" factories that the fanatic "Mullahs" have made! Maybe the Iraqi kids of today won't become "Martyr's" later on!
#1: Saddam Hussein DID, in fact, have WMD's and an on-going research program for nuclear weapons! It is possible or even PROBABLE that, when Saddam was delaying the IAEA inspectors, the massive amounts of WMD materials were being re-located in another country!
#2: Saddam Hussein DID, in fact, violate UN sanctions a total of 17 times! When the Bush administration uncovered the "food for oil" scam, with many of the UN "elitists" involved, it became obvious that the UN (and the IAEA) might have been totally compromised, from pure GREED!
#3: It was "common knowledge" that Saddam Hussein was "payrolling" the Hezbollah and Hamas, and paying "tribute money" to the families of suicide bombers... that just might be classified as "terrorists"?
#4: Within the politicos in the USA, Bill Clinton (when he was still President), Al Gore (still in office as VP), Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and MANY others gave speeches that openly declared that Saddam Hussein had WMD's! As an aside, you have to wonder if we would have invaded Iraq ANYWAY, if Al Gore had won in 2000, or if John Kerry had won in 2004!
#5: Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush had an EXTREMELY high rating in all of the polls! For that matter, the majority of the American people kept on wondering WHEN we would attack, not WHY!
#6: The "fatalistic" aspect within the USA was falsely based on what became "vogue" to say....that the USA had attacked "unilaterally"! It was NOT "unilateral", for there was a total of 32 countries that supplied troops, logistics or intelligence! We were NOT alone, yet the news media kept on hyping the word "unilateral"!
#7: The leftist anti-war organizations "warned" that "hundreds of thousands" of body bags would be filled with American troops! It sounded like even those organizations BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, and would use them!
#8: If the invasion of Iraq was all about the oil, then WHY are we seeing such high gasoline prices right now? I'm not sure of what the price of gas is in Iraq at the moment, but it was a whopping 12-cents per gallon not too long ago.....because THEY are using THEIR oil!
#9: We've "lost" the war, or it's "un-winnable"? Well, if the FACTS are correct, 16 of the 17 Iraqi provinces are relatively peaceful right now! The "insurgency" seems to be centralized, mostly within Baghdad! Maybe the news media folks, who RARELY venture out of the "green zone", aren't exactly reporting the TRUE story?
#10: ....And, I just GOTTA use this one, since it has become so popular with the lefties: The invasion of Iraq was....."For the children"! Perhaps if/when Iraq is able to stand on its own feet and become "democratic", they won't feed the children into the "suicide bomber" factories that the fanatic "Mullahs" have made! Maybe the Iraqi kids of today won't become "Martyr's" later on!
JuanCarlos
New member
Keyword: relatively. From what I'm reading back at this end, Kirkuk is actually more violent than it was when I was stationed up there. What "facts" are you basing this on? Do you have a source with a breakdown of both coalition and Iraqi deaths by province and date?
Sources please. And you know what they say about common knowledge and assuming right?
I see. This is an assumption. So because the country was in a dramatic state of fear and Bush had high ratings, that automatically means the country was wondering "when" we would attack IRAQ (again make the connection between Iraq and Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, I dare you).
Assumption.
This is just plain wrong. The reason why gas prices are so high right now even though the price of oil keeps going down is because the REFINERIES are taking a whopping 33% of the profit for each sale of gasoline. The refineries are also in "maintenance mode" thus the total production of gasoline is down. Again; ASSUMPTION.
Data for May 5 2007
Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.06
Crude Oil Cost $1.50
Refinery Cost and Profits $1.26
State UndergroundStorage Tank Fee $0.01
State and Local Sales Tax $0.26
State Excise Tax $0.18
Federal Excise Tax $0.18
Retail prices $3.46
Reference to your "unilateral" statement please? And also you HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! Yeah 32 countries... The U.S. supplied 130,000 troops for the war effort. The U.K. supplied 9,000 and 24 countries supplied less than 450 troops and most have by now withdrawn from the war effort.
Reference for Iraqi children being used as suicide bombers pre-invasion please. Also definition of Mullah: "Mullah (Persian: ملا) is a title given to some Islamic clergy, coming from the arabic word mawla, or maula, means both `vicar` and `guardian.` Depending on the circumstances it can be either a term of respect (a learned man) or abuse (a bigot and fanatic). [1]
In large parts of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, Turkey, central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, it is the name commonly given to local Islamic clerics or mosque leaders."
So where are the facts? Besides your #2 fact/impregnated with assumptions. It's funny how people make themselves look like idiots on their own.
JuanCarlos
New member
Um...I remember the time preceding our invasion of Iraq. He's not far off the mark. It was actually pretty sickening.
EDIT: Also, he has a point with the whole "unilateral" thing. I'm trying to figure out what to call it when one country contributes like 90% of the force, another contributes like 9.9%, and then a bunch of others throw in token troops for that last .1%. "Semi-bilateral" maybe?
JuanCarlos
New member
But if you put them in some sort of numbered/bulleted list, and maybe throw in some extra capitalization, that makes it super true!
JuanCarlos
New member
My numbers are for March, 2004. So that is why they are different. Although I should have in fact looked for invasion forces instead of "police state" numbers.
Coalition Numbers
Coalition Numbers
Just shortly after 9/11 the country was in a patriotic fervor with flags flying from every vehicle and on every house. The American people were hurt, mad and determined to have revenge. Rallies were held and the American Legion was everywhere. But, as is always true, day to day issues took precedence over patriotic issues. No one can stay white hot all the time. Bush knew this, and pushed for the Invasion while the iron was hot. I don't like Iraq, Saddam or Islam, but I didn't see the necessity of invading Iraq then and I don't think we should be there now. The reason for the war is OVER. Terrorism cannot be fought with armies. (see Vietnam)
I don't care what happens to Iraq. Let them kill each other forever, it doesn't affect me. My country is in trouble now, that does affect me and mine. Illegal immigration is a poison for our system, it takes our money and economy and gives us nothing in return. Smuggling is the worst crime against the American people. Drugs sap our strength and our economy is siphoned off to the South. Fossil fuels are necessary to our lifestyle and we are being strangled there. We have plenty of issues to work on here.
The war on terrorism should be a quiet war waged by intelligence agencies and Spec Ops troops. The FBI is our domestic federal anti terrorist agency, we should finance them and use the CIA and Spec Ops troops for foreign ops. We should be like the Israelis, work undercover and hit hard.
I still fly the American flag from my house, and I urge all Americans to be proud of our nation. Even with all of our problems, WE ARE A FREE PEOPLE. Let anyone who tries to tamper with our constitution beware. We will not go quietly into slavery.
From my cold, dead, hand.
I don't care what happens to Iraq. Let them kill each other forever, it doesn't affect me. My country is in trouble now, that does affect me and mine. Illegal immigration is a poison for our system, it takes our money and economy and gives us nothing in return. Smuggling is the worst crime against the American people. Drugs sap our strength and our economy is siphoned off to the South. Fossil fuels are necessary to our lifestyle and we are being strangled there. We have plenty of issues to work on here.
The war on terrorism should be a quiet war waged by intelligence agencies and Spec Ops troops. The FBI is our domestic federal anti terrorist agency, we should finance them and use the CIA and Spec Ops troops for foreign ops. We should be like the Israelis, work undercover and hit hard.
I still fly the American flag from my house, and I urge all Americans to be proud of our nation. Even with all of our problems, WE ARE A FREE PEOPLE. Let anyone who tries to tamper with our constitution beware. We will not go quietly into slavery.
From my cold, dead, hand.
Simple - to secure a place in that region where the US can operate with realtive impunity.
The US tried the "good old boy" approach for decades with various leaders in that region and it proved to be a failure.
Our presnece in that part of the world right now depends on the whim of the Saudi royal family,,,and that's (probably) not going to last much longer.
Iraq & Saddam simply presented the right opportunity & the right timing to make such a move.
Iraq is destined to be another Korea,,,not another VietNam. If the Dems get into the oval office next election, I expect to see a lot of excuses why we need to remain in Iraq.
The US tried the "good old boy" approach for decades with various leaders in that region and it proved to be a failure.
Our presnece in that part of the world right now depends on the whim of the Saudi royal family,,,and that's (probably) not going to last much longer.
Iraq & Saddam simply presented the right opportunity & the right timing to make such a move.
Iraq is destined to be another Korea,,,not another VietNam. If the Dems get into the oval office next election, I expect to see a lot of excuses why we need to remain in Iraq.
targetshootr
New member
I invite anyone who thinks it was a good idea to stomp into Iraq to pull up a chair and read this from start to finish:
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)