Iraq War, why are we there?

You could easily argue that they are their to stabalize the middle east. I hear laughing... But I will continue. Iraq would not have been better off if the invaision had never taken place; civil conflict, war with Iran etc. Those are all things that could have happened. Iraq could have been argued to be the catalyst for the whole middal east plunging into conflict.

By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".

[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 could easily argue that they are their to stabalize the middle east. I hear laughing... But I will continue. Iraq would not have been better off if the invaision had never taken place; civil conflict, war with Iran etc. Those are all things that could have happened. Iraq could have been argued to be the catalyst for the whole middal east plunging into conflict.

By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".

redwolf22

By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".redwolf22

[QUOTE="redwolf22"]By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".Sajo7

Well most of its my opinion on the subject. No, I don't think Iraq ever had WMD's. I can't go as far as digging up evidence (as I can't be botherd) but most of it is based on the seven(?) day war and that Israel has a Nuclear weapon. I personaly think that by stabilizing the middle east by military presence, something much worse was prevented from happening (like a war between Sunni and S'hia; Iran and Suadi Arabia. Beginings of WW3 right there).

Whatever the true reason was, it was probably a good reason. Governments will not just go to war with no real reason, everything (well at least here in britain) goes through alot of criticism before happening.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="redwolf22"]By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".redwolf22

Well most of its my opinion on the subject. No, I don't think Iraq ever had WMD's. I can't go as far as digging up evidence (as I can't be botherd) but most of it is based on the seven(?) day war and that Israel has a Nuclear weapon. I personaly think that by stabilizing the middle east by military presence, something much worse was prevented from happening (like a war between Sunni and S'hia; Iran and Suadi Arabia. Beginings of WW3 right there).

Whatever the true reason was, it was probably a good reason. Governments will not just go to war with no real reason, everything (well at least here in britain) goes through alot of criticism before happening.

You could easily argue that they are their to stabalize the middle east. I hear laughing... But I will continue. Iraq would not have been better off if the invaision had never taken place; civil conflict, war with Iran etc. Those are all things that could have happened. Iraq could have been argued to be the catalyst for the whole middal east plunging into conflict.

By military presence alone, America/Britain/other countries, have stopped the possibility of the arab nations going to war and probably helped the people of Iraq as well. Thats why I think we are there. The next major conflict will be staged in the middle east; just be glad its "two american marines killed in roadside bomb" instead of "Israel goes nuclear".

redwolf22

And to think the war started just because of WMD's which were never found.......America has no business in the Middle East. They aren't the world police and they need to realize that. Saddam kept the country running..Hell it was better off before the American invaders arrived. So what if he was testing weapons???Just about every country does that. Pakistan has their own nukes I believe, but America isn't invading them.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]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.Cloud_Insurance

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="nomadph"] lol so why not answer this then? - why iraq? why not darfur? - why iraq? why not north korea? darfur = clear genocide. no nonsense. it's there. no government saying "there's no genocide here". clear as day north korea = clear WMD. they said it themselves, they have it. they were testing it also. UN = "do not invade iraq. focus on helping other things if you really want to help the world" so why iraq?

 

if america helped darfur instead, or went after North korea's WMDs instead, the world wouldn't be reacting negatively. but given the circumstances, EVERYONE knows that america didn't invade iraq out of the "goodness of his heart". lol.

nomadph

[QUOTE="nomadph"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] Is this that hard to understand? Iraq represented a direct threat to the US. Thats why we are there. If North Korea was blatantly threatening our country or harboring terrorists, we would be there as well. Outside of demonstrating that they have nuclear capabilities and are bat**** crazy, the north koreans are not threatening us. Iraq harbored terrorists, despite your idiotic belief that they didn't or that there is no proof. Look up Abu Nidal. Most prominent terrorist in the world prior to Bin Laden. Living it up in Iraq until Saddam suspected he would turn on the Iraqis and killed him. Look at how stretched this country's military is right now. Its not like we have the capabilities to go everywhere and anywhere, outside of the multitude of reasons not to do that anyway. You honestly expect me to have an in depth conversation with someone who thought/thinks Iraq had no ties to terrorism? Please. Cloud_Insurance

[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...

You are correct about oil resources, however, the USA went into Iraq largely to stabilize that part of the world for economic reasons, not humanitarian. So, oil definitely does have something to do with it, regardless of the fact that we have plenty of oil in the USA and Canada. Nations don't go to war to save people. Nations go to war over resources, territory, et cetera. 

We are in Iraq because we needed to secure the oil reserves in Iraq before Russia, Germany or any other nation has a chance to cash in on the black gold and control it's flow, which is one of the most vital resources on Earth that we hold as priority. WWI was started over oil as well. the germans and russians were competing for a deal with Iraq and were going to extend the Orient Express into Iraq. We have basically been fight with or over Iraq for the last 100 years.

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...

You are correct about oil resources, however, the USA went into Iraq largely to stabilize that part of the world for economic reasons, not humanitarian. So, oil definitely does have something to do with it, regardless of the fact that we have plenty of oil in the USA and Canada. Nations don't go to war to save people. Nations go to war over resources, territory, et cetera. 

A single sniper? The US hasn't been allowed to assassinate leaders of other countries for decades...Executive Order 12333 forbids it.cloud_insurance

Do you really believe that? Come on, if the need requires it and the opertunity arises, you could bet they would take a crack at it.

I still think the Iraq war and post-war was justified.

Why do you think violence is the only answer? I cant wait until the Bush era is over, finally diplomacy and talking could take over from bluster and bombs.

Look at the death toll of civilias in Iraq, there are still car bombs going off in that country daily. More innocent people have died in Iraq since America has invaded then the amount Saddam has killed. The world is not black or white, simply invading countries is not always the best and only answer.

Joe_the_hooker

Im not trying to quantify whom was more evil, both are evil enough. Im trying to point out your inconsistencies here, I suppose since you believe that WW2 was about fighting for human rights of those victimized in the Holocaust, than how come the Allies(sans Russia) stopped in Berlin and not Moscow?Joe_the_hooker

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]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.Cloud_Insurance

And to answer to TC's question, it's  because of oil.

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]For the last effing time, there is loads of evidence showing that Iraq supported and trained terrorists. That is a direct threat to the United States. Period. Quit ignoring this fact. Do your goddamn research so you don't come across as a total ignorant fool. I already told you, look up the name Abu Nidal. sSubZerOo

I have read some answers from this topic ... and i really dont know why ppl from US Dont know what why us army is in Iraq..
Its simple........ They dont fight with terrorists.. coz how the hell they can do that ?? everybody can be a terrorist even you.... YES! YOU!! xd 
They are there for petroleum..... LOL!... :x  

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

We are there because we like invading other countries.

It's what we do.

 Here is what I think:

This guy speaks the truth. 

This is the REAL reason why we are in Iraq.

[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

"to maintain stability"

Attacking over the borders of iraq's neighbours with no permission nor any warning is a funny way of going about it, but that's the stated aim at the moment.

Cause like father like son

Cause like father like son

Led_poison

all we have to do now is recruit Germany then we can go on a world tour :twisted:

[QUOTE="Joe_the_hooker"][QUOTE="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...

Cloud_Insurance

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][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.swizz-the-gamer

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] 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. Cloud_Insurance

How wrong youa re, there has been no evidence that Saddam allied him self with AQ.. Infact he despised the AQ organization as well as Bin Ladin.. Furthermore we are actually ARMING THE EXTREMISTS in Iraq to help fight AQ.. So quite clearly in the United States limited view they think AQ is the only emeny.

For some reason, people in this thread continue to ignore the fact that Iraq did and does have terrorists.

There is no evidence what so ever, you have provided no evidence.. There has been no report.. And BUSH never made that the PRIMARY point to invading Iraq, if Saddam did have terrorists.. Surprise surprise! EH would have made that the main point and not false claims of WMD's.. WMD's and that he was a threat was the reasons why they claimed to come in.. If he supposedly harbored these terrorists we would agree, we had no problems of goign after taliban, BUT long and behold they didn't use that what so ever..

They trained terrorists, thousands of pieces of evidence of training camps have been found. Known terrorists have been known to live there.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/Your full of it here is proof of the a report that showed that AQ and Saddam were infact ENEMIES.. SADDAM does not hold the same goals as the terrorist, he is all for the increase in his powers, where the terrorists are for the destruction of western nations even if they meet their own demise.

Nobody in Darfur is a credible threat to harm the US, either here at home or abroad. Being in Iraq is not about oil.

It has to be that and other logical reasons.. We have reports that he does not have WMD's, nor did he harbor terrorists..

If the US was obsessed with acquiring/exploiting oil, they would go to canada partner with them and mine the **** out of the tarsands. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot less controversial than going to the mid east and ******* around.

What are we fighting for? It certainly not freedom. CleanPlayer

[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

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]What are we fighting for? It certainly not freedom. Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] No he's the only person who agrees with you... America had vested interests in going to war there that is undeniable. America did not to go war to help the Iraqi people, thats insane. There are loads of dictators in the world, why doesn't America invade them all? Why was it Iraq? The reason for the war was WMD's. They weren't found thus it's an unjust war. sSubZerOo

How wrong youa re, there has been no evidence that Saddam allied him self with AQ.. Infact he despised the AQ organization as well as Bin Ladin.. Furthermore we are actually ARMING THE EXTREMISTS in Iraq to help fight AQ.. So quite clearly in the United States limited view they think AQ is the only emeny.

For some reason, people in this thread continue to ignore the fact that Iraq did and does have terrorists.

There is no evidence what so ever, you have provided no evidence.. There has been no report.. And BUSH never made that the PRIMARY point to invading Iraq, if Saddam did have terrorists.. Surprise surprise! EH would have made that the main point and not false claims of WMD's.. WMD's and that he was a threat was the reasons why they claimed to come in.. If he supposedly harbored these terrorists we would agree, we had no problems of goign after taliban, BUT long and behold they didn't use that what so ever..

They trained terrorists, thousands of pieces of evidence of training camps have been found. Known terrorists have been known to live there.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/Your full of it here is proof of the a report that showed that AQ and Saddam were infact ENEMIES.. SADDAM does not hold the same goals as the terrorist, he is all for the increase in his powers, where the terrorists are for the destruction of western nations even if they meet their own demise.

Nobody in Darfur is a credible threat to harm the US, either here at home or abroad. Being in Iraq is not about oil.

It has to be that and other logical reasons.. We have reports that he does not have WMD's, nor did he harbor terrorists..

If the US was obsessed with acquiring/exploiting oil, they would go to canada partner with them and mine the **** out of the tarsands. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot less controversial than going to the mid east and ******* around.

LMFAO. Your whole post fails for one reason. You are talking about Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Did I mention either of those things? No. Not all terrorists are frigging al Qaeda... Go to google. Type in "terrorists in Iraq" or something similar. Browse the hundreds of news articles detailing terrorist activities within Iraq that were discovered after we went over there. Then stop posting. Thanks.Cloud_Insurance

Oil...michael582

/thread

VMD´s is bull crap, the us government knew there were no vmd´s in Iraq, the U.n made an inspection with approval from Saddam, the searched the whole land and didnt come up with anything, the u.s claiming having legit sources stating there were VMD´s in Iraq but didnt want to tell the U.N inspection because of fear of revealing the source, so u.s pissed on the inspection and went in anyways and guess what there were none, big suprise.

They fricking lied, Clinton gets empeached for sexual relations with an intern and nothing happens to bush for starting a war on full out lies, its mind boggling to me.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] 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. Cloud_Insurance

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"] No, I've said that was part of it. Similarly to how Iraq harbored and trained terrorists was part of it.

How wrong youa re, there has been no evidence that Saddam allied him self with AQ.. Infact he despised the AQ organization as well as Bin Ladin.. Furthermore we are actually ARMING THE EXTREMISTS in Iraq to help fight AQ.. So quite clearly in the United States limited view they think AQ is the only emeny.

For some reason, people in this thread continue to ignore the fact that Iraq did and does have terrorists.

There is no evidence what so ever, you have provided no evidence.. There has been no report.. And BUSH never made that the PRIMARY point to invading Iraq, if Saddam did have terrorists.. Surprise surprise! EH would have made that the main point and not false claims of WMD's.. WMD's and that he was a threat was the reasons why they claimed to come in.. If he supposedly harbored these terrorists we would agree, we had no problems of goign after taliban, BUT long and behold they didn't use that what so ever..

They trained terrorists, thousands of pieces of evidence of training camps have been found. Known terrorists have been known to live there.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/Your full of it here is proof of the a report that showed that AQ and Saddam were infact ENEMIES.. SADDAM does not hold the same goals as the terrorist, he is all for the increase in his powers, where the terrorists are for the destruction of western nations even if they meet their own demise.

Nobody in Darfur is a credible threat to harm the US, either here at home or abroad. Being in Iraq is not about oil.

It has to be that and other logical reasons.. We have reports that he does not have WMD's, nor did he harbor terrorists..

If the US was obsessed with acquiring/exploiting oil, they would go to canada partner with them and mine the **** out of the tarsands. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot less controversial than going to the mid east and ******* around. Cloud_Insurance

l

[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 could say that it was none of America's business to take on Hitler and the Nazi's, yet if America did not millions of lives would be lost anyways. But instead of Anti-American governments coming out stronger they get weaker.

l[QUOTE="xmitchconnorx"][QUOTE="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...rusty_armor1

You could say that it was none of America's business to take on Hitler and the Nazi's, yet if America did not millions of lives would be lost anyways. But instead of Anti-American governments coming out stronger they get weaker.

war = business = money