• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does anyone here believe we could've went to war with Iraq without the 9/11 attack?

R

Remy XO

Golden Member
Most people can agree that we shouldn't have left Saddam in power in the 90's and most certainly the Bush family didn't think so either. How important was it to Bush junior to take out Saddam and could he have raged war on Iraq once more without a terrorist attack like 9/11?
 
w/o 911 this country would be in a completly different situation.

edit: but maybe this is the path to the rebirth of a once great nation. I think dark times are a comin'
 
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
 
Without 9/11, there's no way there'd be an ounce of support for war with Iraq. Americans tend not to care about foreign affairs until it involves planes flying into our buildings. After the Somalia mess, most Americans were happy to keep the troops home. Look how much flak Clinton got for his limited air war in the Balkans.
 
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Except Saddam was no maniacal religious freak like the mad mullahs of Iran who are a far more dangerous enemy.
As far as a broader war on terror....well, in harsh dictatorships when people have no outlet nor means to influence their government they often turn to religion. Which has been the breeding ground for radicals in Middle East.
The real danger is and has been in countries, many supported by the US that have enslaved their people like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
We should have fixed our mess before we went after a toothless Saddam.
 
Originally posted by: Remy XO
Most people can agree that we shouldn't have left Saddam in power in the 90's and most certainly the Bush family didn't think so either. How important was it to Bush junior to take out Saddam and could he have raged war on Iraq once more without a terrorist attack like 9/11?
Click to expand...

The Bush family is in disagreement, although I doubt you'll ever hear it directly stated. Bush Sr. made it very clear why he didn't go into Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.
 
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Could we have went to war with Iraq just on those assumptions though? What does it take to have full American support to go into a war?
 
hmm... i'd say that we would not be at war with iraq right now... we'd probably all just be sittin around waiting for something exciting to happen in the world. I also think that bush woulda had a 50/50 chance of getting re-elected, because most people who voted for didn't want to change presidents during a war, and most people against were angry about the war, so remove the war, and it's all up in the air who would win.
 
Originally posted by: Remy XO
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Could we have went to war with Iraq just on those assumptions though? What does it take to have full American support to go into a war?
Click to expand...

American support for a war was high when we mention the war in Afganistan. Almost 3000 people dead, and planes flying into our financial infrastructure will pretty much do it
 
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Originally posted by: Remy XO
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Could we have went to war with Iraq just on those assumptions though? What does it take to have full American support to go into a war?
Click to expand...

American support for a war was high when we mention the war in Afganistan. Almost 3000 people dead, and planes flying into our financial infrastructure will pretty much do it
Click to expand...

So without those planes flying into our countries tallest buildings, a war with Iraq would have never happened? Could we have just said we are going into Iraq to get you cheaper oil? I bet that would have worked.

 
um... considering oil prices have risen since we went in... no

I think the american public understands that if we piss the oil producing countries off, prices go up

this war is about waaaay more than oil, first off... saddam was a prick to begin with, then he was also helping terrorists, smuggling WMD's across his borders AND he decided to shut out UN inspectors
 
No war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and still no help for Africa.....

Americans live for today, and with their head in the sand intil someone s**ts on them.
 
Originally posted by: Remy XO
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Originally posted by: Remy XO
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Could we have went to war with Iraq just on those assumptions though? What does it take to have full American support to go into a war?
Click to expand...

American support for a war was high when we mention the war in Afganistan. Almost 3000 people dead, and planes flying into our financial infrastructure will pretty much do it
Click to expand...

So without those planes flying into our countries tallest buildings, a war with Iraq would have never happened? Could we have just said we are going into Iraq to get you cheaper oil? I bet that would have worked.
Click to expand...

Cheaper oil? I believe it is access to oil not the price that motivated Bushies.

 
Originally posted by: maluckey
No war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and still no help for Africa.....

Americans live for today, and with their head in the sand intil someone s**ts on them.
Click to expand...

So you guys are saying if I was a ruler of a country where my citizens are very happy and have their heads in the sand I would have to wait until someone shits on them like an attack on a major building for them to support a unpopular war?
 
Originally posted by: AragornTK
he was also helping terrorists, smuggling WMD's across his borders
Click to expand...

Buwhahahahahahahah! :laugh:

Give me another one son...I need a laugh! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Neither Saddam nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and Bush's father did NOT want to remove Saddam from power. Just look at the results junior is having and you'll know why.

I want some pizza too but only if they deliver.


edit

Saddam had no WMDs either nor did he move or hide them. When willl some people WTFU?

Don't you think if he had them someone would have found at least ONE by now?

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: AragornTK
um... considering oil prices have risen since we went in... no

I think the american public understands that if we piss the oil producing countries off, prices go up

this war is about waaaay more than oil, first off... saddam was a prick to begin with, then he was also helping terrorists, smuggling WMD's across his borders AND he decided to shut out UN inspectors
Click to expand...
Inaccurate on so many levels.

So, you're the replacement Freeper? You guys are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: her209
According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of a broader War on Terror. Their reason is that Saddam was producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Because of Saddam ties to terrorism, he would give these WMDs to terrorists where they can be smuggled into the US and used in a gruelsome terrorist attack. To quote Condeleeza Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Click to expand...

Except Saddam was no maniacal religious freak like the mad mullahs of Iran who are a far more dangerous enemy.
As far as a broader war on terror....well, in harsh dictatorships when people have no outlet nor means to influence their government they often turn to religion. Which has been the breeding ground for radicals in Middle East.
The real danger is and has been in countries, many supported by the US that have enslaved their people like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
We should have fixed our mess before we went after a toothless Saddam.
Click to expand...
i smell free oil in the middleeast using american soldiers as pawns
 
Even before 9/11, GWB reportedly said "Find Me A Way" to invade Iraq. 9/11 was the way- it spawned a shameless campaign of fearmongering and agiprop not seen since the McCarthy era.

"9/11! Osama! 9/11! Terrar! 9/11! Saddam! 9/11! WMD's! 9/11! Nucular Mushroom Cloud! 9/11! Evil Saddam! 9/11! Terrarist Links! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!!!!!!!!

They chumped most of America, including Congress and the Media, many of whom are still unwilling to admit they've been had...even after all of the pre-invasion justifications collapse, revealed as propaganda constructs.... Faulty intelligence? You bet, the same kind that charlatans and demagogues have preyed upon since the dawn of civilization...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top