Someone give me one solid reason why...

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: gutharius
In all honesty, the only remotely defensable reason I have heard from a republican or neocon is this, "It was the right thing to do because the Iraqis are now going to be a free people governed by peacful deomcratic principles." But it is still a weak argument because who are we as americans to decide who gets to be freed and who doesn't. It can also be said that if the Iraqis wanted this they could have revolted and created such a government and nation themselves. As I recall, during Clinton's administration, the US was seriously funding groups in iraq who were intent on taking down saddam and instigating a revolt in order to acheive a government change. But, they really had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to do this. Perhaps this was because the Iraqis, while governed by what we perceive as a military dictator, looked at the nation and themselves and felt content the way they were. Honestly, I don't know why they did not revolt, and only an iraqi could tell you that.

Personally I see no reason why we should have or had the right to invade. But the Bush would say, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." as a reson to invade. Which is really a piss poor reason to send 1000+ americans, as well as countless innocent iraqi and non-iraqi citizens, and allied troops to their deaths.

Actually, one of the reasons that congress authorized the use of force against sadamm was that there was an assasination plot by Iraq against a former president of the united states.

Oh you have got to be kidding me! Like the bush's statement, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." justifies a war. Give me a f-ing break! Not that i don't care about former president's lives being endangered but when you become president you instantly have the biggest fattest bulls eye put on your back and it does not go away just because you are no longer in office. This is a risk anyone takes when they become president and the carry it with them to their grave. This is not a reason to goto war. So find another reason with more vertical strength than a wet piece of pasta to argue.

Why did we go to war?

Christian Reconstructionism

 

[replicator]

Originally posted by: gutharius
In all honesty, the only remotely defensable reason I have heard from a republican or neocon is this, "It was the right thing to do because the Iraqis are now going to be a free people governed by peacful deomcratic principles." But it is still a weak argument because who are we as americans to decide who gets to be freed and who doesn't. It can also be said that if the Iraqis wanted this they could have revolted and created such a government and nation themselves. As I recall, during Clinton's administration, the US was seriously funding groups in iraq who were intent on taking down saddam and instigating a revolt in order to acheive a government change. But, they really had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to do this. Perhaps this was because the Iraqis, while governed by what we perceive as a military dictator, looked at the nation and themselves and felt content the way they were. Honestly, I don't know why they did not revolt, and only an iraqi could tell you that.

Personally I see no reason why we should have or had the right to invade. But the Bush would say, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." as a reson to invade. Which is really a piss poor reason to send 1000+ americans, as well as countless innocent iraqi and non-iraqi citizens, and allied troops to their deaths.

I recall reading about the funding of anti-saddam groups, but I think it ultimately failed because they didn't have the strength and momentum to do it themselves. There was too much in-fighting between the groups and they didn't have enough assurances from the US.

Ideally, I would like the Iraqis to be free, but as you said, it is not the duty of the US to go and liberate every nation in the world. This strategy has been shown throughout history not to be the most effective solution. We could actually end up with WWIII if US continues to follow this policy and who knows how that might end up. Ultimately, I believe that the US is on the cusp of losing its prestige in the world. Globalization and technology are changing things, and the playing field is becoming much more leveled. I think this is the principal reason that neo-cons think that they should be going to spread liberty, because in essence they believe they are spreading America.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: gutharius
In all honesty, the only remotely defensable reason I have heard from a republican or neocon is this, "It was the right thing to do because the Iraqis are now going to be a free people governed by peacful deomcratic principles." But it is still a weak argument because who are we as americans to decide who gets to be freed and who doesn't. It can also be said that if the Iraqis wanted this they could have revolted and created such a government and nation themselves. As I recall, during Clinton's administration, the US was seriously funding groups in iraq who were intent on taking down saddam and instigating a revolt in order to acheive a government change. But, they really had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to do this. Perhaps this was because the Iraqis, while governed by what we perceive as a military dictator, looked at the nation and themselves and felt content the way they were. Honestly, I don't know why they did not revolt, and only an iraqi could tell you that.

Personally I see no reason why we should have or had the right to invade. But the Bush would say, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." as a reson to invade. Which is really a piss poor reason to send 1000+ americans, as well as countless innocent iraqi and non-iraqi citizens, and allied troops to their deaths.

Actually, one of the reasons that congress authorized the use of force against sadamm was that there was an assasination plot by Iraq against a former president of the united states.

Oh you have got to be kidding me! Like the bush's statement, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." justifies a war. Give me a f-ing break! Not that i don't care about former president's lives being endangered but when you become president you instantly have the biggest fattest bulls eye put on your back and it does not go away just because you are no longer in office. This is a risk anyone takes when they become president and the carry it with them to their grave. This is not a reason to goto war. So find another reason with more vertical strength than a wet piece of pasta to argue.

Why did we go to war?

IMHO, It is a combination of issues of which none are factual/logical and all are emotional.

1. Bush showed himself as a strong leader on 9/11
2. Americans saw this and gravitated towards it
3. Some Americans saw the Bush agenda for war with Afghanistan as the right thing and agreed with it (me included). While some did not.
4. Some of the remaining americans from 3 agreed the war with Iraq was right based soley on the fact of "Faith and loyalty in and to their leader" principle. Some Americans knew and believed, that as an American you do not have to have loyalty to the President to be an American and protested a needless war.
5. The number of non-agreeing people from 3 and 4 were not enough to over come the numbers of agreeing americans, most of which were on capitol hill, nor did they realize they needed to heal the hurt others were feeling about 9/11. And we went to war.

Really we went to war because our nation was hurt and scared about a new threat and we lashed out at the world. Ultimately, IMO we went to war because the President failed to heal the emotional feelings of America towards those who attacked us and more importantly towards the shock and horror of 9/11. I dare wonder if he even failed to deal with his own feelings and thereby let them corner him into a position of war with Afghantistan and Iraq. I will give you one thing, Bush has a heart, to bad it controls him at times when logic would have been best. The presidential debates were a good example of this characteristic.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: gutharius
In all honesty, the only remotely defensable reason I have heard from a republican or neocon is this, "It was the right thing to do because the Iraqis are now going to be a free people governed by peacful deomcratic principles." But it is still a weak argument because who are we as americans to decide who gets to be freed and who doesn't. It can also be said that if the Iraqis wanted this they could have revolted and created such a government and nation themselves. As I recall, during Clinton's administration, the US was seriously funding groups in iraq who were intent on taking down saddam and instigating a revolt in order to acheive a government change. But, they really had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to do this. Perhaps this was because the Iraqis, while governed by what we perceive as a military dictator, looked at the nation and themselves and felt content the way they were. Honestly, I don't know why they did not revolt, and only an iraqi could tell you that.

Personally I see no reason why we should have or had the right to invade. But the Bush would say, "This is the man that tried to kill my dad." as a reson to invade. Which is really a piss poor reason to send 1000+ americans, as well as countless innocent iraqi and non-iraqi citizens, and allied troops to their deaths.

I recall reading about the funding of anti-saddam groups, but I think it ultimately failed because they didn't have the strength and momentum to do it themselves. There was too much in-fighting between the groups and they didn't have enough assurances from the US.

Ideally, I would like the Iraqis to be free, but as you said, it is not the duty of the US to go and liberate every nation in the world. This strategy has been shown throughout history not to be the most effective solution. We could actually end up with WWIII if US continues to follow this policy and who knows how that might end up. Ultimately, I believe that the US is on the cusp of losing its prestige in the world. Globalization and technology are changing things, and the playing field is becoming much more leveled. I think this is the principal reason that neo-cons think that they should be going to spread liberty, because in essence they believe they are spreading America.

Yeah, it was a good example of putting dallars in place of soldiers. Too bad it was not really motivated to well from the prior administration.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: brigden
Fundamentally, the Neocons and the Christian Right honestly believe that they have the power to transform the Middle East to benefit Israel.

9/11 was the catalyst to that agenda.

Oil was a secondary benefit and not the sole reason to going to war. Removing Saddamn, their mistake, was a secondary benefit.

What motivation do Christians have for empowering Israel? 😕

I mean, in the Jewish or the Christian version of religion, what would the reward be for Christians, for this benefit to the Jews?

Evangelical Chrisitans support Israel because they believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God. They believe that the emergence of a Jewish state in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was ordained by God.

This article sums it up...

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: brigden
Fundamentally, the Neocons and the Christian Right honestly believe that they have the power to transform the Middle East to benefit Israel.

9/11 was the catalyst to that agenda.

Oil was a secondary benefit and not the sole reason to going to war. Removing Saddamn, their mistake, was a secondary benefit.

What motivation do Christians have for empowering Israel? 😕

I mean, in the Jewish or the Christian version of religion, what would the reward be for Christians, for this benefit to the Jews?

Evangelical Chrisitans support Israel because they believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God. They believe that the emergence of a Jewish state in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was ordained by God.

This article sums it up...

A good example of why the religiously "motivated", "inspired", and "implied" rights should be made illegal. It is these rights which were stated thousands of years ago that we are still fighting over today. Rights to this or that piece of land, rights to this or that child's life, right to shoot/stone someone under this or that circumstance, etc... Just goes to show some people are happy with barely post-stone age thinking.

Like I said There are many theories but no hard core facts. Most likely we will not find out for anywhere from 8 to 16 years from now. That way the people that were lied to would be so far removed from the time frame, where they were lied, to even care. After all it is not a matter of how much you lie, rather it is how often and how frequently in a given amount of time that you lie that gets you caught. Too much, kicked out of office or worse. Too little, well we will let it slide since we can't prove it.

My guess, oil (as reasons for both afghanistan and iraq) and the US needs a land front to put Iran in check.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bush wanted it that way, and would have thrown a fecal hemmorage if he didn't get his way.

 

[da loser]

here's the reasoning. muslim terrorism comes about because of a lack of opportunity in the ME. the only way to bring oportunity to all is to bring democracy. so which place can you attack, and change the entire ME? iraq. if you succeed in iraq, it will be a domino effect. also the case for war in iraq is stronger than any others, since iraq has been under sanctions, wmds, bad man, blah blah blah.

if you believe you can succeed, then it's a very strong argument on how to win the war on terrar.

so why not go after iran?it's tougher. we already have no fly zones, kuwait and saudi/jordan/turkey has good neighbors. and iran is still friends with the rest of the world, especially china.

so why not wait it out, or support other groups?well time is running out, 9/11 showed it is boiling over. and the young male pop of ME is reaching age. 9/11 also gave them the opportunity to carry out this plan.and oil still runs the economy, so you can't live with prolonged instability.

wasn't this already listed on the neocon website?americancentury or something

i also don't see how this is vastly different from the democrat view on live. giving people opportunity, blah blah blah. the only difference is they're iraqis. but with the way people around here support this whole one race, one world crap, you'd think they'd support bush. of course the whole killing people doesn't live up to their idealism. just think of bush as a pragmitist trying to achieve your goals 😉

 

[blahblah99]

I believe there are several reasons to invade iraq:

1) Because the Bush administration knows Iraq can't defend itself if invaded. Going into Iraq was more of a show of force to everyone to NOT mess with the US after 9/11, and not to get in the way. Unfortunately that didnt' work too well. And these so called "few insurgents" are actually the populous of Iraq defending their OWN country from foreign invaders. North Korea, Iran, Syria are all on Bush's so called "axis of evil" list, yet we ignore them and allow them to develop WMDs... why's that?

2) Because the US economy was on the verge of a recession, and what better way to stimulate the economy by going to war....

3) Because the Bush administration wanted to create this shroud of fear amongst the population, and turn around to use that as a tool to remain in office for another term.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ:


DRUMROLL PLEASE
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
4) BECAUSE OF ISRAEL.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nick1985
troll/flamebait

No I'm serious. I bring up Iran and everyone ignores me. So I'm bringing it up here. Why is Iraq > Iran. Every reason anyone can think of for going to war with Iraq, Iran has done worse.

Iran doing something worse does not invalidate action in Iraq.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nick1985
troll/flamebait

No I'm serious. I bring up Iran and everyone ignores me. So I'm bringing it up here. Why is Iraq > Iran. Every reason anyone can think of for going to war with Iraq, Iran has done worse.

Iran doing something worse does not invalidate action in Iraq.

So the reason to invade Iraq is?

 

[BBond]

Someone give me one solid reason why...
Topic Summary: we went to war with Iraq

Aimster,

Have you noticed no one can give you a solid reason why we invaded Iraq???

That's because no solid reason for the Bush administration's baseless invasion exists.

 

[Aimster]

I really don't believe Iraq was a threat to Israel at all. Maybe in 1990 when they had a large military, but their military was destroyed. Saddam had one hell of an army. His generals sucked and their soldiers didn't want to fight for an unknown reason. Saddam couldn't even attack Israel if he wanted.
Iran is the biggest threat against Israel. Iran likes to get involved in the Palestinian cause, yet Palestinians were for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war *stupid Iranian mullahs*.

Iran does play a part in why I made this thread. Every "KNOWN" reason why we went to war with Iraq does not make sense when you look at their neighbor Iran.

Seriously picking on a country that can't even feed its own people and also has a GDP of like 40 billion a year isn't going to make other countries scared of you. United Nations (U.S/British) planes were owning Iraqi airspace. Saddam couldn't do anything.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: BBond

Someone give me one solid reason why...
Topic Summary: we went to war with Iraq

Aimster,

Have you noticed no one can give you a solid reason why we invaded Iraq???

That's because no solid reason for the Bush administration's baseless invasion exists.

Exactly

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: BBond

Someone give me one solid reason why...
Topic Summary: we went to war with Iraq

Aimster,

Have you noticed no one can give you a solid reason why we invaded Iraq???

That's because no solid reason for the Bush administration's baseless invasion exists.

Exactly

:thumbsup:

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I want to know one solid reason why you believe it was right to go into Iraq. I cannot think of one. Please tell me one reason.

UN Resolution 687. 687 is a cease fire agreement, of which Saddam didnt abide by. He routinely took pot shots at our military aircraft patroling the no fly zones. This could be construed as an act of war...

UN Resolution 1441. 1441 was a final issuance to Saddam to comply with 10 previous resolutions and to provide complete and ireefutable evidence that he has given up both WMD programs and ballistic missle programs. He didnt comply, and as per 1441, "serious consequences" were levied against him.

It can also be argued that France, Germany, and Russia's only reason to veto and sort of second resolution [which would have explicitely granted the use of military force] was because of the UN Oil For Food Program and the fact [or rumor] of those 3 countries selling embargoed items to Iraq [items might include militaristic items such as munitions, weapons systems, computers, etc...] Why any sort of hatchet hasn't fallen on them yet for their unethical actions [if any] reamins unknown to me.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Aimster
I want to know one solid reason why you believe it was right to go into Iraq. I cannot think of one. Please tell me one reason.

UN Resolution 687. 687 is a cease fire agreement, of which Saddam didnt abide by. He routinely took pot shots at our military aircraft patroling the no fly zones. This could be construed as an act of war...

UN Resolution 1441. 1441 was a final issuance to Saddam to comply with 10 previous resolutions and to provide complete and ireefutable evidence that he has given up both WMD programs and ballistic missle programs. He didnt comply, and as per 1441, "serious consequences" were levied against him.

It can also be argued that France, Germany, and Russia's only reason to veto and sort of second resolution [which would have explicitely granted the use of military force] was because of the UN Oil For Food Program and the fact [or rumor] of those 3 countries selling embargoed items to Iraq [items might include militaristic items such as munitions, weapons systems, computers, etc...] Why any sort of hatchet hasn't fallen on them yet for their unethical actions [if any] reamins unknown to me.

Nice, very nice. I think that is the best attempt so far :thumbsup: . However ............

If he broke these so called UN resolutions then why in the world did we not even listen to the UN? Saddam was helping out inspectors and he was letting them go wherever they wanted. They were free to search the entire country and the weapons inspectors even said that they believe Saddam does not have anymore WMD. However, the Bush administration did not like this because he knew the UN would want to see the inspectors finish their job and Bush was not very patient so he said screw you UN.

Breaking UN sanctions = punishment by UN. Not by the United States.

If the argument about France, Germany and Russia is proven to be true then you might as well get rid of the UN. What's the point of the UN then if this is true? By the way aren't we trying to resolve the Iran crisis by threatening "UN Action"? The very organization we ignored when we went to war. The same organization that has these countries supposedly voting for their own benefits....

Oh not to mention those resolutions were in place so he wouldn't attack another Arab country. Not the United States.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nice, very nice. I think that is the best attempt so far :thumbsup: . However ............

If he broke these so called UN resolutions then why in the world did we not even listen to the UN? Saddam was helping out inspectors and he was letting them go wherever they wanted. They were free to search the entire country and the weapons inspectors even said that they believe Saddam does not have anymore WMD. However, the Bush administration did not like this because he knew the UN would want to see the inspectors finish their job and Bush was not very patient so he said screw you UN.

Breaking UN sanctions = punishment by UN. Not by the United States.

If the argument about France, Germany and Russia is proven to be true then you might as well get rid of the UN. What's the point of the UN then if this is true? By the way aren't we trying to resolve the Iran crisis by threatening "UN Action"? The very organization we ignored when we went to war. The same organization that has these countries supposedly voting for their own benefits....

Oh not to mention those resolutions were in place so he wouldn't attack another Arab country. Not the United States.

We did listen to the UN. Saddam was stalling. He had an initial deadline of November 15, 2002 to comply. He finally decided it might be a good idea to let the inspectors back in to poke their noses around on Nevember 13th. That cutting it kind of close, isnt it? Why would he stall for so much time if he didnt have anything to hide?

In December 2002, Saddam gave the UN his 12,000 booklet that was supposed to satisfy 1441 [it was to provide evidence that he had disarmed and that he had destroyed all tangible assets reguarding WMD and ballistic missles] The UN and the US both agreed that it didnt do a good enough job. So Hans Blix was allowed to continue poking around.
In January 2003, Blix states that Iraq hasnt fully complied.
In February, the news was a little better, but Blix still says that the Anthrax, VX, and ballistic missle programs were still unaccounted for.
March rolls around and the news from Blix is hopeful that diplomacy might be working, but the US still isnt satisfied. The US and the UK start pusing hard for the second resolution that will allow force, but France says it will veto any resolution that does so [because France was scalping money off of Oil for Food? Selling weapons illegally?]
On March 17th, the US, UK, and Spain make speeches stating that the period for diplomacy is over.

So, basically, you have Iraq defying 12 years or UN resolutions [one of which is open hostility during a cease fire] and 10+ resolutions that required Saddam [in some form or fashion] to disarm and prove it. He didnt help by kicking weapons inspectors out in 1998, and by waiting till the near deadline of UNSC 1441 to let them back in.

How long should we have waited for Saddam to jerk the world around? Wasnt 10 years enough? Wasnt 10+ defied UN Resolutions enough? What about being belligerent during a cease fire?

Those are some pretty sound militaristic reasons to go to war, what more do you want?

 

[BBond]

The Bush administration went to the UN and asked the Security Council to back them in their invasion of Iraq. The Security Council declined. The Bush administration invaded without UN approval.

Stop trying to re-write history. Res. 1441 sat on a shelf collecting dust and the US knew it needed another resolution before invading if they wanted UN approval. They didn't get it. Period.

But they went in and destroyed Iraq based on Bush's lies anyway.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: BBond
The Bush administration went to the UN and asked the Security Council to back them in their invasion of Iraq. The Security Council declined. The Bush administration invaded without UN approval.

Stop trying to re-write history. Res. 1441 sat on a shelf collecting dust and the US knew it needed another resolution before invading if they wanted UN approval. They didn't get it. Period.

But they went in and destroyed Iraq based on Bush's lies anyway.

i never rewrote history, i explained it for the hard headed.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nice, very nice. I think that is the best attempt so far :thumbsup: . However ............

If he broke these so called UN resolutions then why in the world did we not even listen to the UN? Saddam was helping out inspectors and he was letting them go wherever they wanted. They were free to search the entire country and the weapons inspectors even said that they believe Saddam does not have anymore WMD. However, the Bush administration did not like this because he knew the UN would want to see the inspectors finish their job and Bush was not very patient so he said screw you UN.

Breaking UN sanctions = punishment by UN. Not by the United States.

If the argument about France, Germany and Russia is proven to be true then you might as well get rid of the UN. What's the point of the UN then if this is true? By the way aren't we trying to resolve the Iran crisis by threatening "UN Action"? The very organization we ignored when we went to war. The same organization that has these countries supposedly voting for their own benefits....

Oh not to mention those resolutions were in place so he wouldn't attack another Arab country. Not the United States.

We did listen to the UN. Saddam was stalling. He had an initial deadline of November 15, 2002 to comply. He finally decided it might be a good idea to let the inspectors back in to poke their noses around on Nevember 13th. That cutting it kind of close, isnt it? Why would he stall for so much time if he didnt have anything to hide?

In December 2002, Saddam gave the UN his 12,000 booklet that was supposed to satisfy 1441 [it was to provide evidence that he had disarmed and that he had destroyed all tangible assets reguarding WMD and ballistic missles] The UN and the US both agreed that it didnt do a good enough job. So Hans Blix was allowed to continue poking around.
In January 2003, Blix states that Iraq hasnt fully complied.
In February, the news was a little better, but Blix still says that the Anthrax, VX, and ballistic missle programs were still unaccounted for.
March rolls around and the news from Blix is hopeful that diplomacy might be working, but the US still isnt satisfied. The US and the UK start pusing hard for the second resolution that will allow force, but France says it will veto any resolution that does so [because France was scalping money off of Oil for Food? Selling weapons illegally?]
On March 17th, the US, UK, and Spain make speeches stating that the period for diplomacy is over.

So, basically, you have Iraq defying 12 years or UN resolutions [one of which is open hostility during a cease fire] and 10+ resolutions that required Saddam [in some form or fashion] to disarm and prove it. He didnt help by kicking weapons inspectors out in 1998, and by waiting till the near deadline of UNSC 1441 to let them back in.

How long should we have waited for Saddam to jerk the world around? Wasnt 10 years enough? Wasnt 10+ defied UN Resolutions enough? What about being belligerent during a cease fire?

Those are some pretty sound militaristic reasons to go to war, what more do you want?

The UN resolutions were to keep Saddam in place so he wouldn't attack any of his neighbors. Iraq was never a threat to the United States/Europe. Did Saddam ever attack anyone but his neighbors? No. He had no military to do any further attacks and was in check. The UN should have acted on this situation and not the US. Why should the US act on it and go against the UN when Iraq does not even threaten the United States? If the UN sees no reason to use force then their should be no force. If the US wants to go against the UN then the US should never bring up the UN again for any matters (EX: Iran).

Again you are saying the UN is incapable of doing their job. Even if that is the case why are we doing the job of the Kuwaitis/Saudis/Israelis/Iranians when the resolution was mainly to protect them? We are not their police nor did they ask us to be their police. Matters like this are handled by the UN not by the United States.

Answer this: Why didn't bush go after a bigger threat such as Iran if he didn't need anyone to tell him what to do? He obviously didn't need the world to listen to him and the real threat was/IS Iran. The inspectors never found anything and they were being toyed in your own words. OK, well Iran is known to have stockpiles of chemical weapons and is known to give weapons to terrorist. Iran also gives millions to Hezbollah, but no UN resolutions are against Iran. Iran threatens the United States/Europe/Israel.
You saying we only need to attack countries that break UN resolutions?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
A war for survival is essentially what Iraq was. Not survival in a stone-age sense, but of a lifestyle. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the American Way of Life? is becoming more and more unsustainable. From the intense energy requirements to the unhappiness of our consumerist lifestyle, it is far from perfect. However, most Americans feel that low fuel costs are their birthrights. And men in power do not exit easily. The war was simply a ways to an end, securing the power base of many elites while placating the rest of us with assurances of safety, energy and a continued existence of the American Way of Life?.

I can guarentee from the bottom of my heart and from the depths of my brain, that if Al Gore were in office, he would have done nearly exactly the same. Maybe without the lies and hypocrisy, but a war would have still occurred.

Saddam was setting a dangerous precedent:

1. Began talks about selling oil in euros. Today, all oil sales must be in dollars.
2. Complete neglect of oil fields.
3. Compliance, even though such compliance was wholly unnecessary.

And he also presented an easy target.

Witness how the buildup for a war on Iran is progressing. Like Iraq, Iran has VAST reserves of oil, with lots of infrastructure backing it up. She also has significant reserves of natural gas, a crucial resource the NA continent is lacking. She has a "fundementalist" (I would say a reactionary government) Islamic (the new Communism) government. And it has those crucial buzzwords, "WMDs" and "ties to Al Qaeda." Iran has also begun shipping oil in euros or in dollars. This threatens the "petrodollar" as our currency has no physical backing other than oil. The only thing keeping the dollar afloat is the people's trust that a dollar is worth a dollar. I would not be surprised if there was an invasion of Iran.

This is not a neocon position, this is not a Bush position. This is a "survival" (ironic quotes) position. To preserve our unsustainable way of life, we would rather die than reduce our consumption. It is akin to asking everyone to cut their consumerism to almost nothing. Our economy thrives on persons hoarding more and more non-essential novelties. From that new 21' LCD monitor to the latest iPOD, we all crave it, even though it brings no real satisfaction to our lives. Nearly everyone here, including myself, is guilty of this. For instance, I must have the new GTA game coming on Tuesday, I need HL2 and a new vidcard and a new processor. I know I'm guilty of it. However, I try not to buy lots of useless sh!t I don't need.

I've said this 100s of times. None of these problems posited by the world have single world causes or solutions.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The UN resolutions were to keep Saddam in place so he wouldn't attack any of his neighbors. Iraq was never a threat to the United States/Europe. Did Saddam ever attack anyone but his neighbors? No. He had no military to do any further attacks and was in check. The UN should have acted on this situation and not the US. Why should the US act on it and go against the UN when Iraq does not even threaten the United States? If the UN sees no reason to use force then their should be no force. If the US wants to go against the UN then the US should never bring up the UN again for any matters (EX: Iran).

Again you are saying the UN is incapable of doing their job. Even if that is the case why are we doing the job of the Kuwaitis/Saudis/Israelis/Iranians when the resolution was mainly to protect them? We are not their police nor did they ask us to be their police. Matters like this are handled by the UN not by the United States.

Answer this: Why didn't bush go after a bigger threat such as Iran if he didn't need anyone to tell him what to do? He obviously didn't need the world to listen to him and the real threat was/IS Iran. The inspectors never found anything and they were being toyed in your own words. OK, well Iran is known to have stockpiles of chemical weapons and is known to give weapons to terrorist. Iran also gives millions to Hezbollah, but no UN resolutions are against Iran. Iran threatens the United States/Europe/Israel.
You saying we only need to attack countries that break UN resolutions?

Your original post was for someone to give you one good reason as to why the US invaded Iraq. I have completed the request. Now then, if you wish to discuss the nuances of corrupt politicians and the would have/could have beens, the whys and the hows as to why the UN didnt/wouldnt act, then start a new thread.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Aimster
The UN resolutions were to keep Saddam in place so he wouldn't attack any of his neighbors. Iraq was never a threat to the United States/Europe. Did Saddam ever attack anyone but his neighbors? No. He had no military to do any further attacks and was in check. The UN should have acted on this situation and not the US. Why should the US act on it and go against the UN when Iraq does not even threaten the United States? If the UN sees no reason to use force then their should be no force. If the US wants to go against the UN then the US should never bring up the UN again for any matters (EX: Iran).

Again you are saying the UN is incapable of doing their job. Even if that is the case why are we doing the job of the Kuwaitis/Saudis/Israelis/Iranians when the resolution was mainly to protect them? We are not their police nor did they ask us to be their police. Matters like this are handled by the UN not by the United States.

Answer this: Why didn't bush go after a bigger threat such as Iran if he didn't need anyone to tell him what to do? He obviously didn't need the world to listen to him and the real threat was/IS Iran. The inspectors never found anything and they were being toyed in your own words. OK, well Iran is known to have stockpiles of chemical weapons and is known to give weapons to terrorist. Iran also gives millions to Hezbollah, but no UN resolutions are against Iran. Iran threatens the United States/Europe/Israel.
You saying we only need to attack countries that break UN resolutions?

Your original post was for someone to give you one good reason as to why the US invaded Iraq. I have completed the request. Now then, if you wish to discuss the nuances of corrupt politicians and the would have/could have beens, the whys and the hows as to why the UN didnt/wouldnt act, then start a new thread.

Well until you can tell me why it was a good reason even after all I've said then you can take credit for finding one good reason. Unless everyone here agrees that your reason is 1 good reason then this thread is dead.

Edit: I don't think you can say much to what I've said except for the same thing over and over again. You've broken my heart. I had popcorn and everything ready for this debate too. I guess I will have to call it a night.

 

[Genesys]

Does it matter if Saddam was an immediate/immenent threat to the US/Europe? NO! The fact still remains that there were over 10 Resolutions levied against him, and he didnt comply with a single one untill it came down to the wire. Why are you so apathetic and pacifistic towords important issues like this? Are you really content and at peace to let someone like Saddam exercise ANY ammount of control [via defiance] over the world? The UN was/is incapable of doing it's job because it is filled to the brim with corrupt politicians looking to line their pockets with money at the expense of a 3rd world country. It was [still is] blatantly obvious that the UN is so full of red tape and bureaucrats that it cant [or WONT] enforce it's actions through force, but rather through more red tape and bureaucracy.

We are doing the job of the Kuwaitis/Saudis/Israelis/Iranians because they are either incapable or [as in your case] apathetc to the issue. Or in Israels case, they cant afford to do it, it would be political suicide. Like it or not, we world police, no other single nation can fill that role, and the UN refuses to fill that role. Matters like this SHOULD be handled by the UN, but since it refuses to accept any sort of reponsibility, or take any action aside from PAPERWORK, they disqualify themselves as viable options.

My answer to your question: Bush went after Iraq for a multitude of reasons, the chief of which is this. Iraq is whats considered a soft target. It was deemed an acceptable risk because it was assessed that our military would take minimal casualties in the invasion of Iraq. The assessment turned out to be true, we took very few casualties and quickly took over the country. We then set about disbanding the Saddam government and making provisions to instate an Iraqi government.
The entire idea was [or still is for all I know] this: Create and foster a democracy in the middle east and other countries will follow. Iran being the next [the young generation in Iran is currently highly discontented with the mullahs and desire a more western style way of life] You would have a coup de etat without ever having to fire a single shot in Iran, then you sweep in diplomatically and help along anew fledgeling Iranian democracy. So, all of the sudden, you now have Iraw, Iran, and Afghanistan fostering fledgeling democracies, whose next? It would be a veritable domino effect once the middle east had gotten a taste of freedom. Dictatorships would fall and democracies would rise and oppression would be replaced by freedom. The face of an entire region would change because one country had fallen to military action. That was [or still is] the plan as I saw it.

I'm saying the UN needs to enforce it's resolutions, or quit issueing them. It's that simple. A resolution is issued, it needs to be enforced. Somone capable needs to enforce it, and if the UN is ineffectual, then someone [or some country] that can produce the desired results needs to step up.