Thread: Why America Went to War with Iraq

To the OP - I have to agree with bigdog on this one. Although there are plenty of theories on why we went to Iraq, none of them are legal. An analogy would be a police officer that sees someone driving a car that he thinks is suspicious. He follows them for a time during which the car crosses over the yellow line. The officer pulls them over because of this violation, not because of his suspicions. What ever his intentions are, it doesn't matter because he now has the legal right.

Toker-
You make some good points about fighting al-Qaeda and you are right that getting them to engage us is useful in lessening their numbers and it is true that are very spread out and operate in many different cells. I think that were you are wrong is the effect that the war in Iraq is having on al-Qaeda. True we are lessening the numbers of AQIZ (al-Qaeda in Iraq) but there are other al-Qaeda cells that are operating independently of that conflict. They have been able to conduct attacks in Muslim countries but have also attacked Europe since the invasion (train bombing in Madrid, Spain).
This is because as you pointed out al-Qaeda is very spread out, the same terrorists that are constructing VBIEDs in Iraq are not the same ones that are training to conduct operations in western countries.
I also think that you might be overestimating the damage that having a true democracy in Iraq will have on al-Qaeda as a whole. True it will make it much harder for them to operate and while I don't doubt that it will have some impact on their operations, I don't think that it will destroy them. Religious terror is a hard thing to stop.

And I can sum my opinion up in like, what, three sentences?

1.) I really don't give a flying fuck who's making money off the war (wherever it is) on terrorism.

2.) The simple facts are that certain countries (where we are right now and are about to be in the near future) support(ed) terrorist organizations whether through finance, arms, training, property(land to use for training purposes), equipment, or personnel.

3.) Terrorist organizations are responsible for more "innocent civilian" deaths than all the taught wars put together (this is not a definitive period of time for either the terrorist attacks nor the wars), and on 11SEP01, we, the American people and visiting foreigners, were attacked, without provocation, on our OWN soil with no warning or declaration of war.

FUCK THEM. Period.

Originally Posted by jakt

Yet another reason I like Texas Team Players, the Texan mentality.

WORD! lmao

LMAO your ass while it lasts. Am I to TTP like al-Queda is to America? Take off your goggles, bitch, and pay attention to more than yourself.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Am I to TTP like al-Queda is to America?

You had better not be, otherwise we will have to hunt your ass down, destroy you, and send you to your heathen god to spend all of eternity's hellfire and damnation with the rest of the ninety-two excommunicated virgin bastards!

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

historians......should stick to history. Rather than contempary events, which have yet to become "history". Simple monday morning quarterbacking. Like Scott McClennan........not man enough to voice any of the objections and issues he had at the TIME of the event.......but such a "whistle blower" to come out and do it AFTER THE FACT.

sad state of affairs......but the same old monday morning quarterbacks. I call them bitches. On both sides of the aisle.

Guys like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews or Bill Oreilly....talking shit about planning and build ups and strategy......if any of them had what it takes, and actually gave a shit, they'd run for office and help make a difference.

they don't do this, because they are missing one, or all of those qualities.

We are all Monday morning quarterbacks, otherwise, we would all be somewhere making a difference.

It's not just guys like Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly that are talking shit about planning and build ups and strategy, it's also everyone who has posted their ideas or thoughts in this thread, therefore, if we all gave a shit, we would run for office and help make a difference. Or maybe the guys listed don't run for office because they aren't politicians, they might just be journalists (use your own definition here) .

Marm

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by jakt

Yet another reason I like Texas Team Players, the Texan mentality.

Just for shits and giggles, has it come across anyone the strategical importance Iraq is? The sheer fact that Iraq is placed smack in the middle of the Middle East, is enough reason for me to have a US presence in Iraq. Especially due to the fact that it borders Iran.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

If colin powell and Bush went to war because they wanted sadaam's secret stash of chocalate cupcakes.....I could care less. So long as it all makes sense on papers filed at the UNSC, then that's what had to be done.

WORD! lmao

and even this reason......which is of course a militarily and strategically perfect reason to "take over" or go to war with a country........still could not be used as the justification leading to the war. Makes sense, and it's a good argument......but it's illegal to take land and attack countries for their strategic importance to the greater good.

material breach of the UNSC. That's it.

As the Bush administration winds down we are starting to see the truth. Condaleeza Rice says that we went into Iraq to spread democracy.

I know that bigdog disagrees with me, but it's not that hard to imagine spreading democracy as a virtue. When I first came to TTP I saw a lot of hatred in the banned forums. I also saw a lot of beautiful people on opposite sides of a fence trying to convince each other that they were cool, but each side was afraid to be nice first. I tried to set an example of kindness by giving money to TTP strangers with hopes that my seed would grow a bigger tree.

IMO G.W. Bush did the same thing with Iraq. He drew on his faith and believed that if he planted a seed of democracy in Iraq then it would take root and spread through the Middle East. In his opinion lesser thinkers would have seen that effort as a dog chasing its tail or throwing good lives and money in the garbage. G.W. had faith in the kindness of bigger thinkers.

I'm still not convinced that he went about spreading peace in the best way, but I can see where was coming from. Now I pray that people around the world can see where he wanted us to go. He planted the seed like bigdog did with TTP. It's up to the rest of the world to see the beauty.

Originally Posted by CNN

(CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite President Bush's low approval ratings, people will soon "start to thank this president for what he's done."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says "there is no greater honor than to serve this country,"

"So we can sit here and talk about the long record, but what I would say to you is that this president has faced tougher circumstances than perhaps at any time since the end of World War II, and he has delivered policies that are going to stand the test of time," Rice said in an interview that aired on CBS' "Sunday Morning."

The secretary of state brushed off reports that suggest the United States' image is suffering abroad. She praised the administration's ability to change the conversation in the Middle East.

"This isn't a popularity contest. I'm sorry, it isn't. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run -- not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment," she said.

"And I am quite certain that when the final chapters are written and it's clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gone in favor of an Iraq that is favorable to the future of the Middle East; when the history is written of a U.S.-China relationship that is better than it's ever been; an India relationship that is deeper and better than it's ever been; a relationship with Brazil and other countries of the left of Latin America, better than it's ever been ...

"When one looks at what we've been able to do in terms of changing the conversation in the Middle East about democracy and values, this administration will be judged well, and I'll wait for history's judgment and not today's headlines."
Asked by CBS' Rita Braver why some former diplomats say Americans are disliked around the world, Rice said that's "just not true."

"I know what U.S. policy has achieved. And so I don't know what diplomats you're talking to, but look at the record," she said.

Rice said she wasn't bothered by criticism about her or the administration's polices, saying if a person in her business is not being criticized, "you're not doing something right."

"I'm here to make tough choices, and this president is here to make tough choices, and we have. And yes, I -- there are some things that I would do very differently if I had it to do over again. You don't have that luxury. You have to make the choices and take the positions that you do at the time," she said.

Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians."

"If you're making historical judgments before an administration is already out -- even out of office, and if you're trying to make historical judgments when the nature of the Middle East is still to be determined, and when one cannot yet judge the effects of decisions that this President has taken on what the Middle East will become -- I mean, for goodness' sakes, good historians are still writing books about George Washington. Good historians are certainly still writing books about Harry Truman," she said.

Rice, 54, said she has enjoyed working in the Bush administration during the last eight years, first as national security adviser, then as secretary of state.

"There is no greater honor than to serve this country," she said, adding that there is also no greater challenge.

Rice said when the new administration takes over, she plans to return to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and write two books -- one on foreign policy and one about her parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/...ion/index.html

Nope, I still don't see much good of us invading Iraq. In fact I still see diminished standing in the world's view. And we gave jihadists a legitimate rallying call for years to come. And then some..............

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Nope, I still don't see much good of us invading Iraq. In fact I still see diminished standing in the world's view. And we gave jihadists a legitimate rallying call for years to come. And then some..............

Our motives for doing things shouldn't be based on the world's view of us (The United States). No more than we should live our lives and make decisions soley to please our parents. Obviously, we shouldn't disregard the opinions of our fellow countries, but we ultimately need to decide what's best for us, not them.

As for the rallying cry....the extremists hate us with every fiber of their being. Regardless of whether or not we go to war with a country they harbor in, we spit on them, we call their mother a nast quief bag....they will come after us all the same.

Tell any male that God will be pleased if you kill the infadels and that you will get all the sex you want when you do so.....Tell any guy that and see if he changes his mind.

As for the rallying cry....the extremists hate us with every fiber of their being. Regardless of whether or not we go to war with a country they harbor in, we spit on them, we call their mother a nast quief bag....they will come after us all the same.

Oh, that's right, "they hate us for our freedom"....... The most ridiculous and ignorant thing ever said. No they hate us because, in thier eyes, every countrry that we involve ourselves with, we exploit until we have had our fill, then we shit on them. If it isn't our government, it is our corporations. They also hate us because of our unwavering stance that Israel can and does no harm. We have a military base in one of thier "holiest of holy" lands. Now if I agree with this assessment, it doesn't matter.............but to make such a ridiculous notion that "they hate us for our freedom", which is what your president says, and apparently you are towing this hook line and sinker.

I agree with your point that we shouldn't rely solely on how will will look in other's eyes when making decisions.....but I fail to see where invading Iraq was "best for us". And when we make a decision that obviously affects our allies as well as us, it makes sense that we should consider thier views.