Why we went to war in Iraq

Red says no one has been able to answer this question so I will answer it.
I will repeat a little of what I said in another thread for arguments sake as
to a different viewpoint on the war in Iraq than other posters have said.

1) Iraq was in defiance of the UN sanctions.
This is no little secret, everyone knew this, Illegal weapons were tagged and
confirmed by the UN inspectors but disappeared like everything else before or
during the war.

2) We tried to enforce the UN sanctions so that it would have some kind of credibility but what really happened is they lost more with the surprise we
got from the oil for food scandal.

3) The president made his case for wmds with the American people, the Clinton Administration also believed the same thing when he was in office.
I don't buy the argument that our intell was at fault for reasons below.

4) I don't buy Bush lied, that argument has no teeth, There was America and
other countries that believed the same things from evidence that they had seen.
I rather think Saddam and Iraq sent most of his wmds to Syria and Iran just like he did with his air force in the first gulf war or hid them underground somewhere just like he hid himself.

5) I watched the war on Fox and MSNBC, I saw illegal weapons with my own
eyes, weapons that were illegal by UN Sanctions yet Bush lied?

6) We are looking at this war in the short term, it will take years to tell the whole story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This part is hilarious!!

People compare this to Vietnam and yet I don't ever recall a country invaded,
dictator overthrow, then a country able to vote for a leader all in a 2 year
time span.
People also calling for Rumsfeld head and attacking him.
Things in Iraq aren't going as bad as some people claim, yes, elections are less than a month away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIETNAM WAR
The media did help us lose Resolve and lose the war in Vietnam, we won every battle over there.
IF you haven't read General Giaps memoirs.

"Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp."

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/...15-090923-9426r

 

Final Point

Its not the end of the world, we went through this same scenario in WWII.
Nazi, Germany, we occupied that country and the ss went into hiding and came out in
civilian clothes using terrorist tactics to attack us.
WE WON!
The media and papers claimed back then that we were losing the peace and the war.

History repeats itself and it aint always Vietnam

The same time the Japanese were beheading some of our soldiers.
We brought that to an end real fast and WON!

 

numbers 2 and 6 are things i wish more people would see.

 

You left out the oil contracts for Bush's good friends.

 

The oil contracts went to the UN, France and Germany.
You can't be so stupid as to not realize whats been in the news with this UN
scandal and who made the money and it aint Bush and his friends.

I feel sorry for you if you truely think that! :dis:

 

I know my opinion is in the minority on these boards and that's ok. Let me just preface this by saying that I voted for Bush, but don't really label myself as a liberal or conservative. But, I really don't understand the point of this war. See my rebuttals to your points below. I fully expect for you guys to pile on, so have at it. :wink:

So what? Israel is also in defiance of UN mandates, but we're not cutting off aid to them. This is one of the things that enflames Muslims so much is that they think there's a double standard to UN sanctions when it come Iraq and to Israel and to a large extent, they are correct. Besides, it's not Iraq that we should have felt threatened by. To me, North Korea's nuclear proliferation to the highest bidder is WAY more of a threat then Iraq will ever be.

Again, so what. I'm not trying to diminsh the fact that they were in violation, but did you REALLY feel threatened by Iraq so much that American (and only American) lives were worth losing over? At that point in time, war with Iraq was not the answer.

I with you on your point that everyone thought they had WMD's, but so do a host of other nations that sponsor terrorism. So are we going to invade them too because they MIGHT use them against us?

I fully believe that if we'd have devoted the resources that we have in Iraq to finding OBL, we would have him by now. Unless you're one of those who believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, then I know you've heard this argument before. But, it just so happens to be true. Once we had him and Al-Zawhari, THEN we could've turned our attention to Iraq, if necessary..

Furthermore, as horrible of a person as Hussein was, he had complete control of that country. No insurgents, no car bombs etc. etc. I can't imagine anyone genuinely believing the world as a whole is safer because we invaded Iraq? By removing him from power and failing to seal the borders, all we did was destablize the region, create a power vacuum, and turn the place into a quagmire - the last of which was exactly what Hussein wanted all along. He just happend to have gotten caught in the process. I've heard the arugments about Husseins human rights violations and how he oppressed the people of Iraq, but guess what? Some of our strongest middle eastern allies do the same thing - mainly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but it's ok when they do it. Granted, they may not have taken it to the extreme that Hussein did, but that still doesn't make it right. But because they're bolstering our agenda, it's overlooked.

I've also heard the argument of "well, better that that stuff's happening there then here". That's extremely short-sighted logic if people think that the war in Iraq is the only reason a terrorist strike has not happened on US soil since 9/11. It's simply not true.

They key is to let the voice of the moderate Islamist be heard because they FAR outnumber that of the radicals. Where are all of the Islamic scholars denouncing that suicide and the killing of innocents go against the very word of the god they fight so vigilently to defend? I'll tell you. With so much anti-American sentiment in the middle east (and elsewhere), we have ostracized those (moderate Islamist) who may not agree with the tactics of the fundamentalist, but they either hate US foreign policy so much that they view the radicals as the lesser of two evils or they are too scared to speak out for fear of getting killed. Why not cut off aid to Israel until they comply with UN mandates against them? Doing so would give the UN some credibility in the Muslim world and makes the US look less like a hypocrite. And, by the same token, why not cut off aid to Egypt and other middle eastern countries that force feed nothing but anti-American news casts and talk shows to their people until they can prove that they're balancing their programming with the same number or pro-American shows. I think its assinine that we give Egypt 2 billion a year and all they do is talk sh!t about us. We all know neither of these thing will never happen and those of us who are informed know why. Feel free to flame away if you do not agree, but do not misconstrue my opinion as being "anti-American" or what not. I served in the military and am a veteran of the first Gulf war and fully believed in that cause.

Lastly, sorry if this last paragraph went away from the topic of the original thread. I sort of went off on a tangent as I was typing.


:911: :911: :usaflagwa :usaflagwa :usaflagwa

 

i think you are right about that. good point.

it worries me that other countries will see the united states as a pushover. i want other leaders of countries to think "damn, yunno if the US says something, you damn better do it quick or pretty soon you will be in jail and your country overthrown". for example if some country is harboring terrorists, and we tell them not to, it is imporant that they know we are not afraid to go to war to back up our words, and not allow years and years of violation.

if we do decide that some other country might sponsor terrorists, or allow them too easy access to wmds and we threaten their leaders now, i bet they will be pretty worried that they might not be in power for long.

i dunno that we are qualified to say that, unless you are some sort of advanced military strategist. you and i do not know what kind of resources it takes to to an effective search. it may not be a matter of manpower or resources or whatever.

this is the best opposition argument to the war in my opinion, and i worry about it. however, the way i see it, only the spread of rational free democracies can overcome the spread of radical religious fundamentalism. i hope that democracy in iraq will lead to prosperity and serve as a model to show other countries that freedom and capitalism are good, and that backward theocracies and dictatorships are bad. it is a very very long term solution i know. in the short term we may have made the world alot less safe. i hope we havent, and i hope that in the long run democracy will spread and contribute to diminishing violence and extremism.

the reason i voted bush is simply this: i think that the only smart long term plan that might work now is the spread of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and i think bush is far more committed to that goal, even if it means tough times now.

i agree, i think we should stop all foreign aid. i think aid only makes for problems.

 

No problem Red,
I love this time of year and everyone is usually busy preparing for family or
visiting family.

Take your time, we'll be here! :thumb:

Plus its hard concentrating on anything right now since this NS stuff is blowing up like a major storm over the LSU Tiger Nation.

 

Instead of looking at it from the perspective of an American, look at it from their point of view and that line of thinking may appear arrogant, whether intended or not. I am not by any means an Islamic apologist, but not doing so leads to a lack of understanding of their culture, which only serves to intensify the conflict. There may have been a time when that line of thinking worked, but not any more. The leaders of these nations know that we can't possibly fight a war on many fronts and expect to win. Hell, we don't even have enough troops to secure Iraq. Besides, their hatred for the US only increases their resolved to defy us.
As a veteran of a war, I think I'm qualified to say that we should not START one unless it's absolutely necessary. Can we say that about Iraq? Some of you can, but I can't. Again, N. Korea is more of a threat because they have nuclear technology, they're a poor nation as a whole, and we can't sit back and do nothing when all indications are that they're willing to sell it if the price is right.

I was only stating my personal opinion. Perhaps a better statement would've been to say our chances to catch him would've have increased dramatically instead of having to rely on local warloads who's allegiances change as frequently as the wind blows.

I truly do see your point, but mine is that Iraq was secular when Hussein was running the country. It may not have been a democracy, but there was no organized Islamic radicals wreaking havoc throughout the region (outside of Saudi Arabia) either.