i seriously want to know. i know its not for osama and it had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. i used to know why we went but i kinda forgot. i know it has something to do with our stupid president's imperialistic mindset. can someone give me a serious answer?
It has nothing to do with the president's imperial mindset. It has everything to do with overthrowing saddam and not abandoning a country after overthrowing the regime that was running the country...
Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.
Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.Ace6301
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it...
We have yet to see if the outcome is positive or not. Only time will tell. Yes Saddam was a terrible person but lets face it the country is still in very very rough shape. I see no reason to officially invade a country with the magnitude the US did when a single sniper could have killed him. If the US wasn't in Afghanistan im sure things would have been better. Dual front battles are difficult no matter the country.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.Cloud_Insurance
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it... How is a dictator in another country America's business? I'm not saying Sadam was a good person or anything but it was really none of America's business.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.Cloud_Insurance
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it...
Saddam used to kill terrorists in his own country. Now since he's gone, the insurgents are attacking U.S Soldiers for a few reasons. Many rebel because Bush bombed baghdad in 2003, killing alot of innocent people, and Bush knew Saddam wasn't there.
Secondly, the insurgents are attacking because they are being invaded. You can't call it anything other than an invasion. The terrorists however are a seperate issue. They twisted their religion and are the ones usually planting the roadside bombs.
We have yet to see if the outcome is positive or not. Only time will tell. Yes Saddam was a terrible person but lets face it the country is still in very very rough shape. I see no reason to officially invade a country with the magnitude the US did when a single sniper could have killed him. If the US wasn't in Afghanistan im sure things would have been better. Dual front battles are difficult no matter the country.Ace6301
A single sniper? The US hasn't been allowed to assassinate leaders of other countries for decades...Executive Order 12333 forbids it.
1. Iraq is in the middle of the Middle East, making it a nice strong hold in there allowing us a nice base of operations.
2. Flex military might in the Middle East, show them hey we aren't gonna mess around. Mainly directed at Saudi Arabi who was harboring Al Queda operatives in there country.
[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.xmitchconnorx
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it... How is a dictator in another country America's business? I'm not saying Sadam was a good person or anything but it was really none of America's business. America has the tendency to help those who cannot help themselves.
Because Saddam Hussein was committing genocide against the Kurds. It takes a while for a stable government to be put in place in a country that was ruled by a dictatorship for decades. Same goes with Afghanistan. If the NATO countries are to just "leave," the places will be left in a state of political limbo and be worse off than they were before.
IIRC, the Taliban had connections within the Iraqi government under Saddam and the Taliban are linked to Al Qaeda, those who perpetrated the act of terrorism on US soil. The Taliban are the major threat in the Middle East/South Asia right now and are hurting a lot of people. Saddam was one link in the chain that has now been removed.
It may not be the US's business to deal in world affairs but it definitely is the UN's... and what Saddam was doing was something that had to be stopped. He was testing chemical and biological weapons on the Kurds, they may not have been "nukes" but they were quite effective at causing destruction on a large scale.
Because Saddam Hussein was committing genocide against the Kurds. It takes a while for a stable government to be put in place in a country that was ruled by a dictatorship for decades. Same goes with Afghanistan. If the NATO countries are to just "leave," the places will be left in a state of political limbo and be worse off than they were before.foxhound_fox
Exactly. America and its leaders would be given an endless amount of **** for throwing a country into chaos (even if it was for a good reason) and then totally abandoning it.
To contain Eurasia. Think about it, every growing power was or is in Eurasia, America fights whatever power so it can rule the rest of the world.Joe_the_hooker
Uh, what are you talking about? Contain Eurasia? WTF does that even mean?
1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.
Im talking about how America is in some constant conflict with some power in Europe or Asia. Granted, America no longer fights a European power since the defeat of the Nazis and if you count out the Russians. However if America was an isolationist country for the past 60 years instead of being an interventionist one, America would not have the dominance and thus access to the markets on the third world. Iraq, Iran, Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, all of them are in Eurasia and they all had resources drained by fighting wars with the US.
1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.dirtydishko2
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research... Cloud_Insurance
Not to mention the US's connections with Saudi Arabia. Canada has the largest known deposit of known petroleum, Saudi Arabia has the largest known deposit of raw crude. Neither country is on bad terms with the United States and Canada is currently developing the tarsands industry. Thinking the US went to Iraq for oil is as much of a conspiracy theory as thinking the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were an inside job.
[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"]1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.Cloud_Insurance
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
Oil is a dwindling resource, the more you have the better. It's ridiculous to say the Administration knew the total cost of how much the war would turn out to be, they're not clairvoyants.
Oil is a dwindling resource, the more you have the better. It's ridiculous to say the Administration knew the total cost of how much the war would turn out to be, they're not clairvoyants.Joe_the_hooker
It is only dwindling because the oil companies control the flow of oil to the consumer. There are plenty of off-shore oil deposits that have the potential to hold more oil than the entire current known world supply. If it is this "dwindling resource" you speak of... then how come the price of oil per barrel has halved since the summer?
[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"]1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.Joe_the_hooker
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
Oil is a dwindling resource, the more you have the better. It's ridiculous to say the Administration knew the total cost of how much the war would turn out to be, they're not clairvoyants. The administration, despite your thoughts on it, is full of people that are much smarter than your or I. They knew this wasn't going to be a 6 month operation or a 1 year operation, they knew the costs. Seriously, please do some research on oil. You clearly have no understanding of that commodity. Foxhound_Fox is really the only other person in this thread who knows what he is talking about.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.Cloud_Insurance
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it...Ahem...
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
Cloud_Insurance
Oil is a dwindling resource, the more you have the better. It's ridiculous to say the Administration knew the total cost of how much the war would turn out to be, they're not clairvoyants. The administration, despite your thoughts on it, is full of people that are much smarter than your or I. They knew this wasn't going to be a 6 month operation or a 1 year operation, they knew the costs. Seriously, please do some research on oil. You clearly have no understanding of that commodity. Foxhound_Fox is really the only other person in this thread who knows what he is talking about. Bwahaha do you know the war was supposed to cost $50 billion? A paltry amount compared to what it's going to cost, which will be around $2.5 trillion. Give or take $500 billion or so. So you're saying they're liars or incredibly stupid.
Â
Of course these are the same people that screwed up the emergency efforts during and after Hurricane Katrina.
[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]Bush administration claimed there were WMDs there. Still haven't found any though so I guess I would say it's a lie. The only good that came out of it was getting Saddam out and that has caused many more problems. IIRC the UN was against the invasion so the US made a coalition.Funky_Llama
You make it seem like eliminating a dictator that should have been killed during the first gulf war was a bad thing and not worth it...Ahem... exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"
It's to late for us to leave. If we did now, the people we are helping would be mortally screwed, and they'd go back to not trusting us like they originally did. Much like with what happened at Vietnam. I remember when Bush was first president, everybody was for the war, and I knew then we shouldn't have gone there. But leaving now would just cause trouble for everyone we're currently helping survive, and live free lives. That's how I see it
[QUOTE="Joe_the_hooker"]Oil is a dwindling resource, the more you have the better. It's ridiculous to say the Administration knew the total cost of how much the war would turn out to be, they're not clairvoyants.foxhound_fox
It is only dwindling because the oil companies control the flow of oil to the consumer. There are plenty of off-shore oil deposits that have the potential to hold more oil than the entire current known world supply. If it is this "dwindling resource" you speak of... then how come the price of oil per barrel has halved since the summer?Potentially deposits could contain much more oil, but those deposits are just theoretical and could be decades away from being fully explored. This is why they'll run dry the known supply first, they'll make money faster that way. The price of oil dropping could be due to a number of factors, such as the recession. Maybe you havent heard that markets ebb and flow?
exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"freshgman
The leader of the Nazi regime during WWII (GS won't let me post the name) kept order, gave jobs to millions of Germans and brought Germany out of the worst depression on the planet. Sure, he massacred 6 million Jews along with countless other minority groups... but at least he kept order. :|
That is the worst excuse for being against the Iraq war ever contrived. Saddam needed to be stopped, plain and simple, regardless of anything else or any other consequences due to him being removed from power.
It's to late for us to leave. If we did now, the people we are helping would be mortally screwed, and they'd go back to not trusting us like they originally did. Much like with what happened at Vietnam. I remember when Bush was first president, everybody was for the war, and I knew then we shouldn't have gone there. But leaving now would just cause trouble for everyone we're currently helping survive, and live free lives. That's how I see itGod_of_duty117
people where for it because of 911. bush said they had wmds and would use it. iraq has about as much a link to 911 as canada. and they have no wmds. America should help restore the military and and the gov't. and put that war on terror bs to rest.
[QUOTE="freshgman"] exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"foxhound_fox
The leader of the Nazi regime during WWII (GS won't let me post the name) kept order, gave jobs to millions of Germans and brought Germany out of the worst depression on the planet. Sure, he massacred 6 million Jews along with countless other minority groups... but at least he kept order. :|
That is the worst excuse for being against the Iraq war ever contrived. Saddam needed to be stopped, plain and simple, regardless of anything else or any other consequences due to him being removed from power. Don't forget Mussolini. He kept order too, trains always ran on time.
[QUOTE="God_of_duty117"]It's to late for us to leave. If we did now, the people we are helping would be mortally screwed, and they'd go back to not trusting us like they originally did. Much like with what happened at Vietnam. I remember when Bush was first president, everybody was for the war, and I knew then we shouldn't have gone there. But leaving now would just cause trouble for everyone we're currently helping survive, and live free lives. That's how I see itfreshgman
people where for it because of 911. bush said they had wmds and would use it. iraq has about as much a link to 911 as canada. and they have no wmds. America should help restore the military and and the gov't. and put that war on terror bs to rest. Uh, they are doing both: as in restoring the country and still fighting the war on terrorism. You do know that terrorists and insurgents routinely jump the border to fight US troops in Iraq, right?
[QUOTE="freshgman"] exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"foxhound_fox
The leader of the Nazi regime during WWII (GS won't let me post the name) kept order, gave jobs to millions of Germans and brought Germany out of the worst depression on the planet. Sure, he massacred 6 million Jews along with countless other minority groups... but at least he kept order. :|
That is the worst excuse for being against the Iraq war ever contrived. Saddam needed to be stopped, plain and simple, regardless of anything else or any other consequences due to him being removed from power. There was no grounds to de thrown him in 2003. it doesnt matter what he did in the past. You dont have the right to do that simply put
Potentially deposits could contain much more oil, but those deposits are just theoretical and could be decades away from being fully explored. This is why they'll run dry the known supply first, they'll make money faster that way. The price of oil dropping could be due to a number of factors, such as the recession. Maybe you havent heard that markets ebb and flow?Joe_the_hooker
The price of oil is always artificially inflated. I've been working at a gas station for well over a year now and can tell you that gas takes no time to jump up but takes forever to go down. The current known deposits are going to last quite a long time. There is no reason to "worry" about them "drying up" anytime soon. And if alternative fuels are stepped up (hydrogen has already been released to the public in Southern California), there will be absolutely no worry at all.
At least the US and other NATO countries have the balls to step up and actually do something about these atrocities happening around the world... unlike the UN.
[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"]1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.Cloud_Insurance
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
I understand how much oil there is in Canada and Venezuela. I also understand how much oil there is in Iraq and how beneficial it is to the U.S. to have a hand in their country's operation. You are far too trusting of Washington officials, and give them far too much credit. Oil is of extreme importance in Iraq. There was a time when I thought too that it was ridiculous for the U.S. to occupy Iraq over oil, but the more research I do, and the more books I read, it becomes sadly and increasingly clear that oil plays a huge role in why we are there. Please educate yourself.
There was no grounds to de thrown him in 2003. it doesnt matter what he did in the past. You dont have the right to do that simply putfreshgman
He was testing chemical and biological weapons on innocent Kurdish civilians. He was committing genocide against the Kurdish people. That is grounds enough to do pretty much anything.
[QUOTE="freshgman"] exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"foxhound_fox
The leader of the Nazi regime during WWII (GS won't let me post the name) kept order, gave jobs to millions of Germans and brought Germany out of the worst depression on the planet. Sure, he massacred 6 million Jews along with countless other minority groups... but at least he kept order. :|
That is the worst excuse for being against the Iraq war ever contrived. Saddam needed to be stopped, plain and simple, regardless of anything else or any other consequences due to him being removed from power.So America should invade every country that roughs up it's own people? Besides the Holocaust wasnt known until after Germans surrendered.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="freshgman"] exactly. saddam was a bad guy but at least he kept order. know 1.2 million iraqis are dead as a result. America disbanded the iraqi military and let people loot and they did nothing but watch. strategy and faulty half assed intel contributed to the failure of this "war"Joe_the_hooker
The leader of the Nazi regime during WWII (GS won't let me post the name) kept order, gave jobs to millions of Germans and brought Germany out of the worst depression on the planet. Sure, he massacred 6 million Jews along with countless other minority groups... but at least he kept order. :|
That is the worst excuse for being against the Iraq war ever contrived. Saddam needed to be stopped, plain and simple, regardless of anything else or any other consequences due to him being removed from power.So America should invade every country that roughs up it's own people? Besides the Holocaust wasnt known until after Germans surrendered. jesus christ, way to dehumanize the extermination of groups of people.
[QUOTE="God_of_duty117"]It's to late for us to leave. If we did now, the people we are helping would be mortally screwed, and they'd go back to not trusting us like they originally did. Much like with what happened at Vietnam. I remember when Bush was first president, everybody was for the war, and I knew then we shouldn't have gone there. But leaving now would just cause trouble for everyone we're currently helping survive, and live free lives. That's how I see itfreshgman
people where for it because of 911. bush said they had wmds and would use it. iraq has about as much a link to 911 as canada. and they have no wmds. America should help restore the military and and the gov't. and put that war on terror bs to rest. Yes but we are helping people over there, and like I said, leaving would sign many death warrants and I don't think many people would appreciate that. And there are indeed terrorists over there, but what Bush was a lie, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't terrorists.
[QUOTE="freshgman"]There was no grounds to de thrown him in 2003. it doesnt matter what he did in the past. You dont have the right to do that simply putfoxhound_fox
He was testing chemical and biological weapons on innocent Kurdish civilians. He was committing genocide against the Kurdish people. That is grounds enough to do pretty much anything.genoicide is happening in many places right now. dont give me that. the US had other motives
So America should invade every country that roughs up it's own people? Besides the Holocaust wasnt known until after Germans surrendered.Joe_the_hooker
Actually, the concentration camps were stumbled upon by Russian forces as they were advancing on Berlin. Read your history more carefully. It was known about months before the Allies even reached Berlin and there was hearsay spreading around about the regime moving large amounts of people on trains to secluded places in Poland and the other sites of camps well before even that.
You cannot just move that many people completely unknown, especially with large amounts of intelligence being gathered daily. Not to mention, I believe the Americans even ran some bombing runs on military installations right beside some of the concentration camps, since aerial photography wasn't good back then, they couldn't figure out exactly what they were.
genoicide is happening in many places right now. dont give me that. the US had other motivesfreshgman
They may have had other motives but removing Saddam was the priority. Plus, I hope that the US and other NATO countries take it upon themselves to stop genocide in other places around the world. It shouldn't be happening anywhere.
What we do know is that Saddam has been removed and Iraq is on its way to establishing a proper government that is not a dictatorship. Leaving anytime soon will undermine everything everyone has worked for and all the lives lost in Iraq will have been for nothing.
[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"]1.WMDs 2.Oil 1.The Bush administration received intelligence that Saddam possessed WMDs, we all know that turned out not to be true. No one really knows the true nature of that "intelligence". 2. Considering that Iraq now possessed WMDs, this was a good reason to go in and secure a strategic territory in the middle east. Do not fool yourselves, we are addicted to oil. And controlling Iraq means stable access to oil. Too bad Iran is now controlling the southern oil rich region of Iraq and siphoning off hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. It was not about the genocide of the Kurds, or the fact that Saddam was a pretty bad guy. It was to make the American people feel as if we were striking back against somebody for 9/11, and for secure access to oil. It was stupid. Bush's father, G.H. Bush, after the Gulf War, understood that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, and that although Saddam was bad, he kept the region stable.dirtydishko2
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Has nothing to do with oil. If America was interested in controlling more oil assets, they would simply mine the **** out of the tarsands in canada. This would be far cheaper than what the war in iraq is costing us. Everyone that mentions controlling iraq for the oil has no understanding of how much oil there is in canada (or venezuela for that matter) or even the existence of the tarsands. Please do some research...
I understand how much oil there is in Canada and Venezuela. I also understand how much oil there is in Iraq and how beneficial it is to the U.S. to have a hand in their country's operation. You are far too trusting of Washington officials, and give them far too much credit. Oil is of extreme importance in Iraq. There was a time when I thought too that it was ridiculous for the U.S. to occupy Iraq over oil, but the more research I do, and the more books I read, it becomes sadly and increasingly clear that oil plays a huge role in why we are there. Please educate yourself. You think the US being in Iraq either going over there in the first place or still being there today has something to do with oil is completely wrong. Its really that simple. How long has the US been over there? How long has Saddam been out of the picture? If the US went over there and "got control of the oil" there, then why was the price of oil increasing to its highest price ever several times over until a few months ago? Hmm? Link me an article saying the US has now taken control of any oil interests over there. And again, the US and Canada could mine the **** of the tarsands at a significantly lower cost than what the war in iraq has cost, and they wouldn't have to worry about their relations with another country or several other countries to do it.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="freshgman"]There was no grounds to de thrown him in 2003. it doesnt matter what he did in the past. You dont have the right to do that simply putfreshgman
He was testing chemical and biological weapons on innocent Kurdish civilians. He was committing genocide against the Kurdish people. That is grounds enough to do pretty much anything.genoicide is happening in many places right now. dont give me that. the US had other motives a good point that many people fail to realize
How is that dehumanizing? The genocide was hardly known by Allied leaders during the war. Sorry if that fact does not jive with your world view.Joe_the_hooker
They knew that big H was the enemy and he needed to be stopped. The Holocaust only added to his dossier of misdeeds.
Okay, the genocide was not known until the Germans were on the cusp of defeat. Huge difference from what I said! My point still stands WW2 was not about liberating Jews from concentration camps.
Log in to comment