Thread: Why America Went to War with Iraq

Have you polled those families trigger? Just curious.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Where did he say, "they hate us for our freedom" or are you just implying that somehow? I've read it 5 times and still don't see it.

I should have specified that I wasn't quoting Lobster, I was quoting the lame-duck-in-chief. I might add, what Lobster said and what the quacker said are essentially the same. Either way, rightfully or not, Islamists don't like the US for a myriad of what could be seen as legitimate reasons, and I don't think jealousy or fear of our freedom is one of them............

Iraq was harboring terrorists. Whether or not they agreed with what the terrorist were doing, they made no effort to stop them either.

Now the fun part Rock. Show us your proof that Saddam harbored Al Queda.

P.S. Nothing your Imam/Pastor says counts as proof.

Got proof that they weren't?

You made the accusation Rock and based upon your response, I'll just assume you have none.

I'm sure the 4000+ dead America soldiers and their families would just love your pretzel logic.

I was just trying to aggravate you for the time being.

I'm at work at the moment on a slow ass computer. I'll be home around 6 or so, gimme some time.

Seriously Rock, you're not aggravating me. But you are disparaging all those that died for an unjust cause. When American soldiers are sent to war, we assume that they are being sent to die for a cause. The question before us is, is the cause justified? This is not a question I take lightly.

Understood. I personally don't think that their is one single reason for this war. Like I said a few posts back, to whom much is given, much is required. I feel we are obligated to help countries such as Iraq who were under oppression from such an evil leader. If I were them, I'd pray every day that someone would come to help.

I'm the type of person that roots for the underdog and stands up for the little guy who can't defend himself. So, in that light, I think that's one of the reasons we went to Iraq.

We have taken our freedoms for granted and have been a part of a country that is the most powerful and influential our whole lives, so it is difficult to understand the situations of people such as the Iraqis, during Hussein's reign. We never have to (or had to) fear that the government would come in, rape our wives, sisters, mothers, and beat our sons fathers, or husbands. This was an everyday thing for them. If we only went for this reason alone, it is good enough for me.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

It's an issue of religion for them hawg. We are the "infadels" to them.If you are inferring that because they are muslim, and we are infidels, that they hate us and by religious fiat should destroy us.........then there is no hope for you. And yes, invading Iraq was good for us, and I personally feel that a country of our power and means are obligated to help the less fortunate. We are blessed nation and to whom much is given, much is required. Then where does it end? Why haven't we invaded Syria or Darfur or any other shanty ass country? Maybe we ought to go back to Mogadishu and Ethiopia, next stop Sri Lanka.....who next? By this logic, we will be rolling over nations until the world is one homogenous empire. There are many Iraqis that think they were better off before the invasion. And about 100,000 others that probably would agree as well, if they were alive.

Iraq was harboring terrorists. Whether or not they agreed with what the terrorist were doing, they made no effort to stop them either.No they weren't. This was debunked a long long time ago. Al Queda came to our country, ran a plane into our buildings, and killed our citizens. Iraq was a home to the organization who was responsible for this, ergo it becomes our business.No, Afghanistan and Pakistan was the " home to the organization who was responsible ". I'd rather have the fight on their land instead of ours. Can you come up with any more jingoistic bullshit? This phrase comes right out of the the dunce in chief's mouth. How did invading Iraq keep "them" from "fighting us here"? How does the kool-aid taste?It's unfortunate it's come down to the "it's them or us" mentality, but that's where we are and given the opportunity, I'm sure you'd here them say the same about us.

And one more thing, when this war was being sold, there were three three arguments for invading Iraq 1)They were harboring AlQeada Proven Wrong 2)They were stockpiling WMD's Once again, WRONG 3)He was a bad man Well 1 out of 3 does not fit the criteria for sacrificing blood and treasure to unilaterally invade a soveriegn country that posed NO credible threat. Can you imagine trying to pass a declaration of war against a country, only because thier leader is a bad man?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Legitimate rallying cry for jihadists?

While it may add to the reasons that jihads use to recruit, if the jihadists worried about legitimate gripes, we wouldn't have suffered the 9-11 attacks, or the USS Cole attacks, or the first WTC attacks.

You think they care about legitimate rallying cries, they don't bother checking whether its legit or not.

Furthermore, this thread is being chewed over with the luxury hindsight.

Had Saddam played ball with the inspectors as he was required to, Bush and his many conspirators in congress (including our next secretary of state) would have had a hard time launching it.

Lastly, I have always taken the 'fight them over there' comment to mean establish a honeypot which is accessible to many in the region. Its a lot easier for jihadists in the area to access iraq than say NYC. Also the difference is that they are fighting Americans armed to the teeth rather than unarmed citizens in NYC.

The result of the iraq invasion will take a long time to become apparent. Sure the short term is painful, destructive, and costly. Nobody likes that. None of you can accurately predict the mid or long term results. The I told you so commentary is ridiculous.

You don't think that our invasion of Iraq isn't used to provide an apparence legitimacy to thier movement? We gave kids that could have been on the wall when it came to thier feelings of the US, a reason to get off of that wall and fight that apparently seems legitimate enough in thier eyes to do so.

As far as your honeypot theory, Afghanistan wasn't a sweet enough pot O' honey? So how exactly is the invasion of Iraq preventing another attack?

Had Saddam played ball with the inspectors as he was required to, Bush and his many conspirators in congress (including our next secretary of state) would have had a hard time launching it.

Had Bush had more patience and listened to the inspectors when they said that there was nothing, and more time was needed, maybe we wouldn't be there. But you know as well as I do that the decision to invade was made well in advance of any weapons inspections. Anything short of Saddam Hussein conceding to a publicly televised cavity search, (which wasn't happening) there was to be an invasion.

The word inevitable comes to mind.......

It is a "what have you done for me lately" type of world we live in. The war in Iraq will have proved to be a good decision in the future. Even still, we are most likely better off now today, than we would have been had Hussein still been in power.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

It is a "what have you done for me lately" type of world we live in. The war in Iraq will have proved to be a good decision in the future. Even still, we are most likely better off now today, than we would have been had Hussein still been in power.

How so? Hussein wasn't a threat to the US. As a matter of fact, he was the one keeping Iran in check. Now there is less of or possibly no counterbalance to Iran's power in that region.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

It is a "what have you done for me lately" type of world we live in. The war in Iraq will have proved to be a good decision in the future. Even still, we are most likely better off now today, than we would have been had Hussein still been in power.

How so? Hussein wasn't a threat to the US. As a matter of fact, he was the one keeping Iran in check. Now there is less of or possibly no counterbalance to Iran's power in that region.

I've already addressed how I felt about letting Hussein kill innocent Iraqis. Like I said, I'm ok with going over there to overthrow Hussein so that the people of Iraq don't have to live in fear every single day.

Don't get me wrong, I think we've been there way too long, but only because we played nice, and didn't use our power efficiently to finish the war sooner. If you ask me, the United States is too nice when it comes to confrontation with other countries. We should have gone in, killed who we needed to kill and got out, but because our government is so worried about offending the rest of the world, we played softly with these douchebags and we are still there.