Why we are in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
I wrote this more than two years ago, but I find that it still holds true.

We went into Iraq because it was the most logical target.

The September 11 atrocity was planned and financed by bin laden and al qaeda. Their money and people came mainly from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, with the Afghan government (the taliban) being the most overtly anti-American and belligerent. Afghanistan also gave aid and shelter to the mastermind, bin laden. For this reason alone, they became target number one.

The pentagon knew that Afghanistan was too distant a target to make a truly effective demonstration of their new resolve against terror, so another target had to be chosen. The country that deserved it most was Saudi Arabia, but since they have been a "friend" of the U.S. for so long, there was no way we would attack them. Besides, I am sure that they have bankrolled a large portion of our activities in Iraq - trading money and oil for us to not invade them...

Though I don't buy into the War for Oil propaganda, if you are going to choose a country to attack, you should choose one that makes the most sense. These were the criteria for the countries that were considered for invasion in order of importance:

The country must be mainly islamic and located in the Middle East.
The country must not be too strong militarily or financially.
The country must have mediocre to poor relations with other islamic countries.
The country should have oil.
The country should have a secular government (for ease of transition to democracy).
The country should have a tie-in to terrorism (most of them do...).

It really didn't matter which islamic country we attacked. It was more important that we not back down again like we had under Clinton. We had to make a stong showing in the back yard of the islamic fundamentalists. Their extremist religion knew no national boundaries, so what difference should boundaries make when choosing a nation to invade?

Iraq fit the above criteria best. It had the added advantages of being the other bookend to Iran, having its air space already under de facto U.S. control, and it was still being run by Saddam Hussein who continued to be a burr in the Bush family's saddle.

Even if Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 (and they probably didn't) they were the most logical target for the reasons outlined above. Larger wars have started over less.
Click to expand...
 
F

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
I disagree, attacking an Islamic country to make an example out of a few fundalmentalist is a bad idea.

It plays right into the fundamentalist views that we are in fact the "great satan" christian crusaders bent on destroying Islam. Instead of detering extremism, it only solidifies their position. Not just in the middle east either, the entire world is on the verge of considering us to be a pariah state and now see us as the number one threat to peace and security in the world.

You are assuming that all muslims support these extremist, I do not believe this to be true.

Its like Great Britian attacking catholic France because a few catholic IRA extremist stir up trouble in northern ireland because it would be convient to do so.
 
S

Samurai

New member
Freedom_1st, they don't think WE are the number one threat to peace and security in the world. They think ISRAEL is the number one threat to peace and security in the world.
 
J

Justme

Moderator
Well...they used to think Isreal was the number one threat. Now that we've killed some 30,000+ Iraqis they might change their views.
 
T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
I never said it was a good or a bad idea, I'm just giving you the reasons why we're there.

I do not assume that all muslims support the islamic fundamentalists. In fact, I believe that most do not support the radicals.

I think you believe that my statement is in support of the war in Iraq. It isn't for or against it. Just a reason why we're there.
 
R

rwilson452

New member
All these arguments on if we should have invaded Iraq are mute. We did invade. it's a done deal. The only argument left is either to finish the job or cut and run. There is no middle ground. Anything inbetween is just spin. Actually, I will leave it to history to decide if the invasion was the right thing. Wait about a hundred years and then ask the question. You still might not get a correct answer as the victor gets to write history. Using the argument that we shouldn't gone in in the first place to me is not a valid argument. It ignores the present invironment. there is no reset button. There is no "do over" . You can't close Pandoa's box. It's the same with the calls for an AWB. they are out there and no law will make them go away.
 
F

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
I never said it was a good or a bad idea, I'm just giving you the reasons why we're there.

I do not assume that all muslims support the islamic fundamentalists. In fact, I believe that most do not support the radicals.

I think you believe that my statement is in support of the war in Iraq. It isn't for or against it. Just a reason why we're there.
Click to expand...

I apologize, I thought you were trying to justify the war.
 
J

Justme

Moderator
Actually your post paints a rather cynical view that we invaded Iraq as some major PR campaign. In reading it I assumed you were against the invasion.
 
F

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
cut and run
Click to expand...

warning, neo-con talking points being used

Cut and run is a pejorative phrase used in the context of a war or battle meaning cowardly retreat. Thus, stripped of emotional connotation, the phrase simply means withdraw or retire from the conflict at issue. The added pungency of the phrase comes from the partially obscured implication that this withdrawal is a course only undertaken by dishonorable fools whose fear and confusion has overcome their better judgment.
 
R

rwilson452

New member
Cut and run

OK substitute any phrase you desire. In the end it's the same effect. How about "bug out"? Hasty retreat? Oh I know, "An orderly withdrawal".
 
H

HJB

New member
The pentagon knew that Afghanistan was too distant a target to make a truly effective demonstration of their new resolve against terror, so another target had to be chosen.
Click to expand...

Why would Afghanistan be "too distant"? If we had concentrated our effort in that country, wiped out AQ at Tora Bora, defeated the Taliban, and created a government that had some relevance outside of Kabul - wouldn't that have been seen as a pretty powerful response to Islamic terrorism?
 
T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Freedom_1st said:
I thought you were trying to justify the war.
Click to expand...
Justme said:
In reading it I assumed you were against the invasion.
Click to expand...
:)

My conclusion is that we invaded Iraq because it made the most sense and gave us a place to fight against radical muslims "over there."

rwilson452 had a very good point. Arguing about whether or not the war is "right or wrong" is pointless. Discussing what should be done next and when, is worthwhile. (At least it is as worthwhile as Internet discussions can get.)

Freedom_1st - Please try to see past what you perceive as pejorative phrases and stop putting labels on people. (You certainly view "neo-con" as a pejorative and yet you use the same tactic. :confused: ) Address the proposition that rwilson has brought up. Should the US leave now, or leave when the goals have been achieved?

Nice unattributed cut&paste from wikipedia, BTW. :rolleyes:

HJB - No. I don't believe so. Given what happened on September 11, 2001, I think radical islam needed something bigger. :)

-Dave
 
F

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Should the US leave now, or leave when the goals have been achieved?
Click to expand...

Whose goals are we talking about here?

The majority of Iraqi's no long want us there and say our presences is now causing more harm then it is helping.

That tells me it is now time to go. There comes a point when the "liberator" has overstayed its welcome and has now become the "occupier", I think that point has come and its now time to withdraw from Iraq. We got Saddam and there are no WMD's

Things are not going to get any better in Iraq, we have been waiting on them to get better for 4 years now and it has not happened, how much longer are going to have to wait? One year? Ten years? A hundred years? Never?

The fact is that Americans do not like lengthy wars and this one is draining our economy, ruining our internatioal standing, and forcing our soildiers to fight and die in an immoral war for a people who do not want us there.

Its time to cut our losses and leave, before we flush more lives and money down the drain for the pipe dream of a democratic Iraq.
 
F

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
"Its time to cut our losses and leave," Is that anything like cut and run?

No, "cut and run" is a pejorative phrase, designed to imply cowardism.

Cut and leave is not and is not designed to elict an emotional response for political reasons.
 
T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Freedom_1st, your post (#15) brings up many good points. Iraq has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of irreplaceable lives.

I see the goals of the conflict in Iraq as:
  • Go in with great force and overwhelm any resistance
  • Kill a whole bunch of radical islamists
  • Remove Saddam from power
  • Set up a government of the Iraqi peoples' choosing
  • Establish diplomatic ties and alliances that will last
  • Work with the new government to "keep the peace"
  • Withdraw when the Iraqi government desires
  • Continue to support the Iraqi government as necessary

What do you think the goals are?

Freedom_1st said:
Americans do not like lengthy wars and this one is draining our economy, ruining our internatioal standing, and forcing our soildiers to fight and die in an immoral war for a people who do not want us there.

Its time to cut our losses and leave, before we flush more lives and money down the drain for the pipe dream of a democratic Iraq.
Click to expand...
And this isn't intended to elicit an emotional response for political reasons? :rolleyes:
 
R

rwilson452

New member
I think I see. It causes the same action but doesn't sound like it does. A political mask.



No, "cut and run" is a pejorative phrase, designed to imply cowardism.

Cut and leave is not and is not designed to elict an emotional response for political reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top