WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ!!

One of the major reasons that the governments are doing very little, is that the higher the price of oil, the more tax they get, so there's no incentive for them to drive down the price.
 
Del Boy said:
Yes - your points accepted, except this one, which is the perhaps the key to my questions. He could have walked away, without confronting USA, just by blinking first. Why didn't he fold at that stage?

Without retrospect, it seems he did a good job of convincing USA and UN that he DID have WMD and the Weapons Inspectors that he might have WMD. There's the rub! Hardly a time to hope that he hadn't. OOh - fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

Concerning convincing:
May i mention Blair just admitted he lied about WMD?
 
poor analogy, but it sticks...

the second Iraq war started at the end of the first (gosh just like WWI and WWII)...

- no fly zones, allowing Kurds "autonomy", etc, sanctions, inspections ... these are all continued war reparations that basically would never end.
- I think in 1998, I may have to find a source, we dropped more bombs on Iraq "quietly" then we did on Serbia, who we had an open war with. We had operation Desert Fox at the very least, which dropped quite a load on em...
- Saddam was never forced to step down (I still don't understand this...)

Basically the USA had a "warm war" with Iraq from 1992-2002. Regular bombing, with some heavy instances, destablizing a population in the north (which btw is probably costing us Turkey as an Ally sooner then later ... in the next 5-10 years).

So the invasion I think was "planned" by the USA for 10 years. This isn't some big conspiracy.

The USA likes to talk up the 200k vs. 1million man army and how we kicked butt. And the USA did, and thank god. But it helps to isolate, sanction and bomb for 10 years before invading.

As a contrast, we all talk down the Soviets ripping Georgia to pieces in just hours. Of course Georgia is on the border of Russia, but I would venture Georgian troops were no weaker then Iraqi troops.
 
I am kind of lost here... So what is the original article about? Some scholar now says; it was right of us to go into Iraq because we may have prevented angry people of attacking us? Or is he saying; it was initially wrong to invade but now a the bad people aren't bad people anymore?

In my opinion he is trying to talk right what the US did wrong. Sure there are many bad dictators around, but I still don't get why Sadam had to go. Why aren't the US tackling the other bad ones too?
 
Everyone knows that you went into Iraq becuae of WMD's, but it was an unsuccessful excuse attempt. Green Zone is a good movie btw.
 
Ted said:
I am kind of lost here... So what is the original article about? Some scholar now says; it was right of us to go into Iraq because we may have prevented angry people of attacking us? Or is he saying; it was initially wrong to invade but now a the bad people aren't bad people anymore?

In my opinion he is trying to talk right what the US did wrong. Sure there are many bad dictators around, but I still don't get why Sadam had to go. Why aren't the US tackling the other bad ones too?
Click to expand...
I think you will find that Saddam committed the greatest sin,... he embarrassed the west with his posturing and dribbling off at the mouth, and we came in like a big soppy kid who hates to be teased. It's unfortunate that so many other countries who are keen to show their allegience with the US felt that we also had to fall for the ridiculous story about WMD as well, as i'm sure that no one actually believed it. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world was of the opinion that it was all bluff.

The truth is that we are killing the best of our upcoming generation to help keep US politicians in power, virtually nothing else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top