Why We're Fighting in Iraq

godofthunder9010 said:
The biggest mistake: Iraq was "sold" all wrong. It would have been a more sure thing if the Bush Administration had bothered to emphasize Saddam Hussein's enormous financial contributions to numerous terrorist causes. Nobody outspent Saddam when it came to Terrorism.

I can see why they went with the WMD reasoning, but it's just not as obvious of a connection. It should have been the secondary reason for invading. I suppose its mostly the fact that the peace agreements with Iraq from '91 specified dismantling WMD programs, but its still a pretty hard mental leap to make it the next obvious target for the War on Terror. Pointing out Saddam's Terrorism funding would have been a lot better thing to point out.
Click to expand...

Do you have some numbers for the claim no one outspent Saddam GOT? I am under the firm impression from my reading that in fact, Iran is the biggest spender when it comes to the funding of terrorism the world over. And if your assertion is wrong then it would have made, and still makes, far more sense to focus on Iran. Failure to do so in my opinion is an act of cowardice on the part of the politicians, striking instead at the two on either side of her least capable of defending themselves.
 
Does Saudi fit into the picture. Seeing it was hteir citizens who flew those planes during 9/11?
It sticks in my craw that they get away with what they do because of the power they have over oil.......
 
if u ask me,i think the invasion of iraq was based solely on oil.if not, why didn't the US go to liberate other countries under despotic regimes like north korea(were Kim is not just seen as a supreme leader,but a god)and sudan were the govt supports islamic militias that kill innocent pple in the darfur region(maybe it's b'cos they don't have oil).they were even reluctant @ first to send troops to liberia,even when the pple there were begging them to interven.
 
bulldogg said:
Do you have some numbers for the claim no one outspent Saddam GOT? I am under the firm impression from my reading that in fact, Iran is the biggest spender when it comes to the funding of terrorism the world over. And if your assertion is wrong then it would have made, and still makes, far more sense to focus on Iran. Failure to do so in my opinion is an act of cowardice on the part of the politicians, striking instead at the two on either side of her least capable of defending themselves.
Click to expand...
I don't have a source available nor handy. The current top spender is Iran, but that's because Iraq is out of the Terrorism Financing runnings. I read and saw several references in reputable news media that talked about Saddam and mentioned that he was number one in passing. I saw it repeated several times by different sources, but I don't have their sources and most of it was TV media.

One reason that those statements made sense to me was Israel. It was Saddam that offered huge payouts to the families of successful suicide bombing attacks against Israel. This was one of his big personal crusades: the destruction of Israel, but he generously funded terrorist organizations all over the world. It was more subtle. For example, "generously" paying off a ransom to Phillipino Muslim terrorists who kidnapped an American or European citizen. The payoff funnels the money to that group that allows them to maintain/expand opperations, all under the mask of being a humane and benevolent.
 
centurion_ue said:
if u ask me,i think the invasion of iraq was based solely on oil.if not, why didn't the US go to liberate other countries under despotic regimes like north korea(were Kim is not just seen as a supreme leader,but a god)and sudan were the govt supports islamic militias that kill innocent pple in the darfur region(maybe it's b'cos they don't have oil).they were even reluctant @ first to send troops to liberia,even when the pple there were begging them to interven.
Click to expand...

One, they didn't attack us. Two, letting Korea steer the course for now is the best tactic. And three, where is the UN in the Sudan? I thought that they were claiming to have things under control.

When the US tries to gather support for a military campaign, the naysayers in France, Germany, Russia, and other usual suspects say that we are simply after control or natural resources. I would love to see every murderous dictator committing genocide as we speak, killed and their forces turned over to their countrymen for justice.

We do what we can with the help of the UK, but even then, there are too many worldwide problems to spread ourselves over. With all respect, I'll have to say, wait your turn and pray that we're not too late.
 
centurion_ue said:
if u ask me,i think the invasion of iraq was based solely on oil.if not, why didn't the US go to liberate other countries under despotic regimes like north korea(were Kim is not just seen as a supreme leader,but a god)and sudan were the govt supports islamic militias that kill innocent pple in the darfur region(maybe it's b'cos they don't have oil).they were even reluctant @ first to send troops to liberia,even when the pple there were begging them to interven.
Click to expand...
Kim Jong Il doesn't have oil true. What he does have is an ironclad promise from China that they will jump in fully if US forces every set foot inside of North Korea. That's one huge ugly mess that will blow up in our faces if we jump into it. We don't want WW3 afterall.

The general policy that the USA seems to have towards Africa appears to be to leave it alone. Solomnia was possibly a noble venture, but it also didn't go well at all. Fixing Africa is an ominous task to say the least and far too big of a job. It doesn't mean I fully agree, but I can see some amount of sense in keeping out of that entire continent. Sudan is a legitimate target for the War on Terror of course, but the thing that really puzzles me: Why on earth aren't the rest of the Muslim and Arabic nations doing something about Sudan and the genocide ongoing there? It's their Muslim brethren that are doing it, and its a horrible shame upon all Islam that its happening. Why haven't Egypt and Turkey intervened on their own, for instance?

One of the funniest things is that, for an entire decade, the USA was criticized across the globe for failing to remove Saddam in 1991. Now the entire planet is screaming at us for having finally done it. LOL.
 
The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.
Click to expand...

who are you to make such accusations, i guess the only person that really knows is G.W. Maybe we did it for a number of reasons. your reason, oil, WMD. Give him some slack.
-FMJ-
 
While I do find that US reasons why she attacked Iraq highly flawed, yet I find the one that Bush jr atttacked Iraq because Saddam wanted to assassinate Bush sr very humourous.

Hardly a good reason.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Kim Jong Il doesn't have oil true. What he does have is an ironclad promise from China that they will jump in fully if US forces every set foot inside of North Korea. That's one huge ugly mess that will blow up in our faces if we jump into it. We don't want WW3 afterall.
Click to expand...

Warning, warning, error will robinson, error...

Two years ago China's Foreign Minister publicly declared that the mutual defense pact it had with North Korea was "no longer relevant in a post cold war world" and that it would not be considered a binding and relevant accord henceforth.
 
Damn, thats a new one on me! Thanks for the update! I'd still say that China is extremely set against US forces in any nation that shares a border with them, wherever they can help it. I think they're going to strongly oppose any proposition to the effect of US invasion of North Korea and I know they already have been very outspoken about the idea.
 
Aye boss he is and it might help some to comprehend his irrational and somewhat paranoid ramblings. The geo-political equivalent of the one weird kid in class no one ever liked now might have nuclear weapons and no friends. Its Columbine on a global scale. This is one of the reasons South Korea's government is playing police negotiator trying to "talk him down" rather than just blasting them. This is not to say the ideas of reunification are bogus, every Korean I have met would like to see reunification happen but they said that this "nuclear issue" has given the government a certain impetus to get off their collective arse and do something about it before things go tits up again.
 
FULLMETALJACKET said:
who are you to make such accusations, i guess the only person that really knows is G.W. Maybe we did it for a number of reasons. your reason, oil, WMD. Give him some slack.
-FMJ-
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to respond but the longer I thought about your comment . . . .

(From one of my postings) If you bothered to read it.
Remember - I said it was "my opinion" that the "REAL" reason was personal on Bush's part.

Oil or ten thousand other things may ("MAY") have entered Bush's mind when he made his decision - but (six-two-even) - revenge was uppermost in Bush's mind when he ordered our forces into harms way.

======================================================
You can characterize my opinon as an accusation if you wish - just remember that I am NOT a minority of one in my opinion. There are many Americans that feel the same way I do. We will (no doubt) NEVER find out what the real reason for the invasion was. The reasons as given by Bush have been proven to be false. For sure, Bush will never tell the truth.

As to who I think I am to make such an "accusation" - I am an American Veteren who has served his country faithfully for 20+ years who has "earned" the right to disagree with the policies this President has saddled us with. That's who I am!
 
Chief,
I wish we had elected John Kerry instead. At least, that way, we could use him as a reverse barometer. Just listen to him, then rotate it 180 degrees and we would be right on target.

I'll never agree with your views on the President because, believe it or not, he is rather complicated but if he starts something, it's obvious by now that he finishes what he said he would do. That alone is unusual in American politics today.

But, you are right about having every right in the World to criticize him because you are fortunate enough to live in and be an American, not because of your Veteran status. Thanks for serving and God bless our kids in harm's way.
 
Missileer said:
So, you would wait for another, more deadly attack on your country? I think you need to rethink the "warrior" part of your screen name.


Something we knew for sure AFTER the invasion. A little cooperation from Hussein would have gone a long way to proving his good intentions.


Simple answer to that one. NO! The US wasn't then or now getting oil from Iraq.

Sure, esteemed reader. Ever hear of "Operation Enduring Freedom?" It was the first step in the war against terror. The Taliban was a known terror organization who were threatening Afghanistan and it's neighbors. They had occuppied the Country and carrying out attacks from there.


Nope, they never asked but I would if they did.
Click to expand...

I was going to respond in some detail, but then I read your last sentence :lol:
It reminded of a quote;
Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine

You will know of him of course.
 
Last edited:
godofthunder9010 said:
Russia, France, United Kingdom and the United States were all in on a grand conspiracy for seizing the world's oil supply. Now that's a reasonable conspiracy, but those four nations don't seem very likely to have cooperated on such a thing. If you are right, shame on them all!! But doesn't it seem a bit farfetched?? We have hard evidence that all of those nations had corresponding independent intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD's. Do you have evidence of the four nation conspiracy that you are suggesting?

BTW, does it seem like such an outrageous thing for the war on Terror to have targetted the world's #1 funder of global terrorism??
Click to expand...

MMMMMMM!!!! Russia and France were in on the invasion to seize Iraq oil.:smile: Yes of course they were. I think you might be advised to check a repeat of the Simpsons, (surrender monkeys?) They seem to be be politically are than you ;-)
 
Welshwarrior said:
I was going to respond in some detail, but then I read your last sentence :lol:
It reminded of a quote;
Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine

You will know of him of course.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't quote from "the Simpsons" as eloquently as you but I do try to read a little.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
One of the funniest things is that, for an entire decade, the USA was criticized across the globe for failing to remove Saddam in 1991. Now the entire planet is screaming at us for having finally done it. LOL.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't?

Why did the Coalition invade? Sounds like a whole bunch of Bush bashing going on here. It wasn't just the United States that invaded, but rather a large Coalition of troops from a many number of countries. The invasion was caused by Mr. Hussein himself by not allowing unrestricted inspections, genocide of his own countrymen, and threats made to nieghboring countries. All of the coalition forces had the same intelligence that President Bush had, and all agreed that something must be done.

Now it turns out that the intelligence was flawed concerning WMD's, but all other justifications mentioned are not flawed, they are a fact. Iraq and the entire region is better off with Hussein gone.

Just the opinion of a person who served in the Marine Corps.

Semper Fi.

Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top