Exactly why did America invade Iraq?

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
abajan
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4270
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:10 am
Location: Barbados

Exactly why did America invade Iraq?

#1 Postby abajan » Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:29 am

This is a reasonable question because people (soldiers and civilians) are being killed out there every day. :(
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#2 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:08 am

here is the best summary I have found:

The individual arguments outlined, in and of themselves might not be sufficient reason to wage war against Iraq, but taken as a whole, the argument is overwhelming:

1) Saddam is a wicked man capable of wicked things. Of this, even the doves agree. In the past 15 years, Saddam has either waged war or lobbed missiles at four of his neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait) and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. He has authorized genocide against one of his ethnic minorities (the Kurds) and promoted a climate of fear and terror. Those who’ve fled his country tell horrible tales of widespread murder, corruption, rape, and torture. Saddam maintains power not through benevolence or good will, but through the brunt use of force. This alone might not be sufficient reason to wage war, but it’s important that we identify Saddam for what he is—a brutal thug who does wicked, despicable things.

2) Inaction means Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. Again, this isn’t a debatable point; the only question is how long it will take. With sanctions, most experts believe the timeline is a matter of years… without sanctions, perhaps by the end of the year. Acquiring nuclear weapons has long been a priority to Saddam’s regime and he was precariously close to ownership in the 1980s when an Israeli aerial attack knocked out an Iraqi nuclear development plant. With his amoral use of power and ability to coerce his scientists with threats of death—or death to their family—the top Iraqi minds are hoping to unleash the nuclear genie even while the pacifists are urging us to “Give peace a chance.”

3) Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons changes the dynamics in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction when he believes it suits his purpose; a nuclear bomb would be just another tool in his arsenal. With it, he has cover to wage war and conquer his neighbors without repercussion. He could roll into Kuwait and conquer Saudi Arabia, telling the United States that any action on our part would result in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. And with Saddam’s history, would any American president dare call his bluff? A nuclear Iraq is Saddam’s passport to a stranglehold on a lion’s share of the oil fields and a conquered Middle East.

4) Certain scenarios exist where it would be in Saddam’s interest to sell nuclear technology to unsavory entities, including terrorists. Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Syria would enjoy possession of nuclear weapons. In exchange for violating the U.N. sanctions, such a trade could be brokered. Furthermore, the major terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, are extremely well funded with vast monetary resources at their disposal—and Saddam needs money to fund his war plans and placate his Republican Guard military division. Saddam worked feverishly in recent years to strengthen his ties to Hamas, going as far as offering financial rewards to the families of homicide bombers. And Hamas returned the favor by pledging support to Saddam in the event of war. On January 10, 2003, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told his supporters, “We urge the Iraqi leadership to open the door for Muslim volunteers who should perform their role in defense of Iraq because all Muslims are targeted by the USA.” Saddam will assuredly reward his “friends” for their loyalty… how he rewards them could pose a direct risk to the United States, her allies, and destabilize the entire region.

5) Nothing in Saddam’s past demonstrates that he’s content with Iraq’s borders as-is. Again, this point is beyond dispute. If past behavior is emblematic of future conduct, than we must assume that Iraq will invade his neighbors again. If it’s in our interests to prevent such a war from happening, we must decide if it’s better to attack him now, in a weaker state, or wait for Iraq to rebuild its military and gain nuclear defenses.

6) It’s in the interests of the United States to create a democratic, pro-Western Iraq. Beyond the obvious advantages—including access to oil—a democratic, prosperous Iraq is vital to our War on Terrorism. Islamic militants brainwash their young, instructing them that their economic misfortune if the fault of Christianity, America, Zionism, and our Western way of life. A rebuilt, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would irrefutably demonstrate the folly of these inflammatory allegations. Freedom is a tricky thing; once let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to stifle. Right now the Arab countries in that region are either led by corrupt dictators or religious theologies. When the neighbors of Iraq see her prosper under a democratic, pro-Western government, they too will demand change. And they will recognize that their economic woes lay not at the feet of America, but with their own leadership. The War on Terrorism is largely a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim youth. And we can’t win this war without proving the superiority of our way of life—and the inferiority of corrupt, despotic governments and Islamic religious extremism.

7) Rebuilding Iraq is possible. Despite all the protests over “nation-building,” the historical truth is that it works. Japan, Italy, Germany, and much of Europe owes its current shape to American nation-building. Japan provides the best example. Back in the 1930s, Japan was a military force that invaded its neighbors, committed widespread human rights violations—including rape, torture, and murder—all while operating under the extremist religious philosophy of Shintoism. So devoted were the Japanese to this religion that they embarked upon suicide missions against the United States, intentionally ramming their planes into American targets. And America responded in brutal fashion, deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. Upon the conclusion of World War II, the bad blood between the Japanese civilians and the United States was exponentially greater than any animosity between the people of Iraq and America. And still, nation-building worked because we successfully proved our superiority and invalidated the claims of our opponents. With American money and American resources, we’re capable of skyrocketing the Iraqi economy far beyond the heights it enjoyed back in 1989. And with lavish amounts of natural resources at its disposal and a secular past, Iraq is arguable better-equipped for rebuilding than the decimated, completely destroyed countries such as 1940s Germany, Japan, and Italy.

8) Saddam won’t leave power without a war. Most reasonable people would agree that it’s in our interest for Saddam to be removed from power and be replaced with a democratic, pro-Western leader. Because of his use of terror, it’s clear that the Iraqi people are incapable of removing their oppressor without foreign help. And even if Saddam is toppled by an assassin’s bullet, a strong probability exists that his replacement would be an Islamic extremist who’d transform Iraq into yet another Muslim theocracy with an anti-American tilt. A democratic Iraq won’t happen without our involvement. If it’s in our interest for the government of Iraq to change philosophically, we need to take an aggressive, proactive roll in actuating such change.

9) The same threats of terrorism will exist if we do nothing. Some like to argue that an American military campaign in Iraq would exasperate the Islamic fringe… but these groups were and are already plotting the death and destruction of Americans worldwide. These same naysayers made these same allegations before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. These naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The terrorist threat won’t eliminate itself if we retreat from Iraq, as American foreign policy did not include an invasion of Baghdad prior to 9/11. The danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action, for hoping to appease these extremist won’t win their loyalty—it will only embolden their war plans.

10) Issues of morality. Morality often gets swept under the table in the pandering, appease-oriented world of foreign policy, particularly among the intellectual elites. Why? Because morality often serves as an impediment to negotiation, earning scoffs and derisions from international diplomats. But there is a legitimate issue of morality in this current conflict. Saddam is an evil butcher who’s terrorized his people for far too long and these people are simply incapable of defending themselves without our assistance. We have it within our power to provide the people of Iraq with freedom, liberty, and protection from a brutal government that orders torture, murder, and rape against opponents. We can protect an ethnic minority from genocide, giving these people a better tomorrow than they ever hoped possible. Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” It is up to us to decide if we wish to utilize our power for good… or to sit on the sidelines, allowing the innocent to suffer at the hands of a wicked tyrant. Apologists like to issue slippery-slope counterclaims: “Saddam is no worse than Dictator X and we can’t save everyone!” No, but we can provide safe haven when it’s in our national interest to do so, and such a case clearly exists in Iraq. And if the best you can say about Saddam is that someone somewhere might be worse, you still haven’t refuted those who label him as evil. The other slippery-slope talking point: “Iraq isn’t the only ‘bad’ country with a nuclear program—what about its Axis of Evil partners, Iran and North Korea? Do we invade them, too?” The answer is, we treat Iraq differently than Iran and North Korea because it is different: Iran and North Korea haven’t invaded any sovereign nations in the past 30 years; in just the decade prior to the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, fired missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and massacred the Kurdish people with chemical weapons. Of these three countries, only Iraq has a history of utilizing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes. Despite the line-blurring of the relativists, Iraq is clearly a different animal than the others—a more dangerous animal.

Now do you know why??
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#3 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:23 am

"invade?"

Pretty strong word...I never really liked it even though it seems to be used by the general public. However, when you consider that we didn't go in there to harm and violate the country -- only to stop the brutality of Saddam's regime and bring him down, then you can't deny that we didn't "invade" Iraq. Hitler invaded. Saddam invaded. Arguably, the only time we ever invaded anything (IMO) was when we came here and invaded the native American's land.

Of course, that's a whole other argument. We didn't do it for power or oil or to expand an empire. We did it in pursuit of freedom. I've heard stories about how we didn't do it very nicely. But, hey, I wasn't here back then and I can't change history and I'm all for living here now and wouldn't change it for the world. So there! :)
0 likes   

Guest

#4 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:39 am

We ostensibly invaded Iraq because of faulty intelligence that Sadaam had WMD's and was non-compliant.

My personal opinion is that we invaded Iraq because Bush wanted to finish the job of his Dad, and Bush wanted to find the right time to do it.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#5 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:49 am

zwyts wrote:We ostensibly invaded Iraq because of faulty intelligence that Sadaam had WMD's and was non-compliant.


What was faulty about it? He did and was...for 13 years.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#6 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:49 am

geeeeezzzz.

faulty intelligence...perhaps, but the search continues for WMD's and I think they will turn up someday, but probably in the hands of terrorists

non-compliant..how can you argue he was compliant???
0 likes   

User avatar
furluvcats
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Temecula, California
Contact:

#7 Postby furluvcats » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:52 am

j...your original post here is one of the best I've seen you make.
0 likes   

Guest

#8 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:53 am

J, I thought (and the rest of the world did) that war in Iraq was because of 9/11. Am I (and the rest of the world) wrong?

This war was because of oil control. period.

Al Qaeda and 9/11 guilties are still free.

Terror is still at high level.

The others are just bla bla bla to justify a war that has no reasons,
except for Mr Bush and his oil supporters.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#9 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:01 am

there is no point in arguing with an America hater like you paolo.

but I can't help but squash at least one of your baseless statements.

This country is in no way what so ever, benefitting from Iraqi oil. That is just plain rhetoric.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#10 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:04 am

furluvcats wrote:j...your original post here is one of the best I've seen you make.



I'm not sure who the author is, but here is the link:

http://www.laststory.com/Give%20War%20a ... 20Iraq.htm
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#11 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:05 am

How many times have we gone through this, Paolo? We don't deny that Saddam and 9/11 were NOT directly connected. However, even Democrats have said that he was a threat and that if he was allowed to stay in power, there's no telling what kind of impact it would have had on the situation in the Middle East. Furthermore, he refused to offer proof about what he did with those weapons that we KNOW he had (he used them against the Kurds) and he refused to offer proof about what kinds of facilities his country was using for production and research of more weapons.

And if it's about oil...why have gas prices risen so drastically these past few months? Obviously, it's not about oil.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#12 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:16 am

0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#13 Postby mf_dolphin » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:16 am

Not only did he use them against the Kurds he admitted to having them after the first Gulf War. Why did he not comply with the sanctions imposed after that war? Why did he continue to develop delivery systems that were expressly banned by that same set of sanctions? The resolutions enacted by the UN during and after the first Gulf War stated that non-compliance was reason for immediate resumption of hostilities. He had over 10 years to comply and refused. That's all the reason President Bush needed to finish the job we should have done in the first war!
0 likes   

DROliver

#14 Postby DROliver » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:23 am

PaolofromRome wrote:J, I thought (and the rest of the world did) that war in Iraq was because of 9/11. Am I (and the rest of the world) wrong?

This war was because of oil control. period.

Al Qaeda and 9/11 guilties are still free.

Terror is still at high level.

The others are just bla bla bla to justify a war that has no reasons,
except for Mr Bush and his oil supporters.


100% WRONG ON EVERY COUNT!

NO ONE EVER SAID WE ARE AT WAR WITH IRAQ BECAUSE OF 9-11 NO ONE ACCEPT THE MEDIA AND NOW THEY ARE SPREADING LIES SINCE THE 9-11 COMMISION REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9-11 AND IRAQ!

This goes to show you how the media controls opinion.This is the reason we will lose millions to a nuclear explosion or a modified Ebola attack!





My personal opinion is that we invaded Iraq because Bush wanted to finish the job of his Dad, and Bush wanted to find the right time to do it.


LOL That was a theme of the media in 2000 and right after 9-11! Its a pathetic excuse just to bash the president and dis-honor our soliders!


The connection to 9-11 and Iraq is the fact that Iraq had and still to this day harbors terroist orangizations.

We invaded Iraq becuase of WMD but since we had to pursue the U.N. first he had time to move and hide them.Make no doubt about it we will find them and make no doubt about it we will go to war with SYRIA if they don't cooperate!

Not only did he use them against the Kurds he admitted to having them after the first Gulf War. Why did he not comply with the sanctions imposed after that war? Why did he continue to develop delivery systems that were expressly banned by that same set of sanctions? The resolutions enacted by the UN during and after the first Gulf War stated that non-compliance was reason for immediate resumption of hostilities. He had over 10 years to comply and refused. That's all the reason President Bush needed to finish the job we should have done in the first war!


Exactly 100% correct!

Peace

Steve O.
0 likes   

Guest

#15 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:45 am

DROliver wrote:100% WRONG ON EVERY COUNT!
The connection to 9-11 and Iraq is the fact that Iraq had and still to this day harbors terroist orangizations.
Exactly 100% correct!
Peace
Steve O.


YOU are wrong 100%. And the reason is that you cannot say that global terror has been reduced, that you and we all live in fear, that terrorism was not existing in Iraq before the war, now is a fun fair for terrorists.

We (the rest of the world) did not need a commission to understand war to Iraq was a mistake and that the excuses used to justify it were just lies. We knew it already.
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#16 Postby streetsoldier » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:46 am

Besides, we HAVE found "smoking guns" during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom...those missiles they lobbed at us while we were in staging in Kuwait were ON THE U.N. LIST (over range limits and capable of carrying NBC warheads); as were the mustard gas and ricin we found in some artillery shells (and don't tell me that Saddam didn't know he had them).

Then, there are the stripped-down and "sanitized" mobile labs we found...just as depicted before the U.N., but hastily (albeit partially) destroyed.

Most recently, components and engines for Iraqi Samoud II missiles (North Korean plans/manufacture, 160-mile range, also banned by U.N.) have been found in scrap barges in Rotterdam within the last few days. Where did THOSE come from???

Add the chemicals that were discovered in the Jordanian mass-killings attempt, and the sites in the Bekaa Valley in Syria that are being "supervised" by Hezbollah AND former Saddam fedayeen, and the picture should be CLEAR as crystal that Saddam's dictatorship had them, transported some out of the country, and/or hid some against a day when they could be put to "good"(?) use (such as the transition of powers?).

Wake UP, people.

Can y'all gimme a "DUH"? :roll:
Last edited by streetsoldier on Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

chadtm80

#17 Postby chadtm80 » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:07 am

that you and we all live in fear

You guys will always live in fear.. Its what you do.. Run and hide from difficult tasks
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#18 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:15 am

they run and hide chad because they know the USA will always bail them out!
0 likes   

DROliver

#19 Postby DROliver » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:16 am

PaolofromRome wrote:
DROliver wrote:100% WRONG ON EVERY COUNT!
The connection to 9-11 and Iraq is the fact that Iraq had and still to this day harbors terroist orangizations.
Exactly 100% correct!
Peace
Steve O.


YOU are wrong 100%. And the reason is that you cannot say that global terror has been reduced, that you and we all live in fear, that terrorism was not existing in Iraq before the war, now is a fun fair for terrorists.

We (the rest of the world) did not need a commission to understand war to Iraq was a mistake and that the excuses used to justify it were just lies. We knew it already.


I respect your opinion but show me the numbers that terrorism is on the rise.Don't you think we are better off without the Taliban?Don't you think the world is better off without those terrorist camps?Don't you think the world or least the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam?

Terrorist have always existed in Iraq.The number 1 terrorist was its president.We are killing terrorist everyday in Iraq so let them have their "Fun Fair" it wont last long!

The world failed the Iraqi people.The world failed the Afghan people.The world would rather put their head in the sand than deal with why other humans want most of the world DEAD!!

Its sad to see how much you hate America.When Rome burns again you (if you survive) will no doubt blame America.Very very sad indeed.

The bottom line is these extermists want us DEAD and DEAD by any means.

Peace

Steve O.
0 likes   

User avatar
southerngale
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 27418
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)

#20 Postby southerngale » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:49 am

I cannot understand how anyone rationalizes that Saddam should have been left in power. What for? I can understand terrorists being upset about his ousting but why would any clear-thinking individual wish for him to remain in power?



Paolo:
J, I thought (and the rest of the world did) that war in Iraq was because of 9/11. Am I (and the rest of the world) wrong?

I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions? :roll:

Oh and btw...we never said this war would be quick or easy, just necessary. The fact that terrorism continues just proves our just cause.
0 likes   
Please support Storm2k by making a donation today. It is greatly appreciated! Click here: Image

Image my Cowboys Image my RocketsImage my Astros


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests