Why did the US invade Iraq?

[Skavau]

Sure it was a great strategy...killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's while trying to win the peoples hearts and minds and at the same time draining the countries oil and placing in a government of US lackeys like they did with Afghanistan! Where are you Christian morals?!

Well, let's be fair. The only thing missing was the regiment of missionaries.

This is so frivolous and basically hyperbole. The United States did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians upon invading Iraq and never intended to. You can foot that at the blame of the 'Iraqi' Insurgency that oppose not only US forces there but the post 2003 Iraqi Government as well as religious sects when it pleases them. They're so useful towards freedom and virtuously anti-imperialist that they often bomb marketplaces and mosques at random.

 

[Gracchus]

According to my understanding, the reason we invaded Iraq was for the following reason.
First we must go back to the late 1970’s to early 1980’s when Iran was our enemy because the shaw of Iran had taken some Americans as hostages

Not quite right. The Shah, whom we had supported, was kicked out for various reasons. He seemed to be a very unpleasant leader. He used his secret police, trained by our CIA, to torture and terrorize those suspected of trying to overthrow his government and replace it with one that would run the country by Sharia Law. So when he left the country for medical treatment the religious fundamentalists seized power and grabbed the embassy personnel as hostages.

Iraq was Iran’s enemy and they were at war so we helped Iraq with weapons; some of them can be considered of mass destruction.

Well, we couldn't very well test them on our own people! It had produced some hard to suppress bad publicity in the past, as when we ran troops through nuclear fallout, and tested blister agents on them.

Years later when Iraq invaded Kuwait we went to war to kick them out; and when Iraq surrendered, we allowed Saddam to stay in power as long as he agreed with the surrender agreement which forbade him from having “weapons of mass destruction” which was spelled out in the surrender agreement.
For whatever reason, we didn’t force him to hand over the weapons we sold him 12 yrs earlier ...

He was using them on the Kurds and Iranians, so he wasn't about to give them back. After all, he paid for them and they were his. And besides we didn't need them. We had and still have our own massive stockpiles.

... but when September 11th happened and we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, we concluded that Saddam Hussain was one of several leaders who was providing financial support to Al-Qaeda.

Because Saddam Hussein was a very secular leader, who cared more about economics than religion, and the fanatically religious al-Qaeda hated him. Naturally, we concluded that he was supporting them.

Our intelligence along with German, and Russian intelligence told us that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction ...

We were told that anyhow, but the details, and substantiating evidence were, of course, "classified".

... and the idea of him turning some of them over to the terrorists caused us to enforce his original surrender agreement and hand over the weapons. Of course Saddam said he didn’t have them anymore ...

Which was true, as he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians, which we knew since we had seen the bodies in the satellite photos.

... so we assumed he was lying and we invaded for refusing to agree with his original surrender agreement.

So we faked some photos and got Colin Powell to lie to the UN, and invaded Iraq to keep Saddam from undercutting oil prices by selling oil to buy food and medicine for his people, and incidentally, to make himself filthy rich.
You almost got it right, Ken! You left some parts out, but you did get the "correct" answer.



The problem with telling that story to those of us who lived through it is that you can't really shove memories down the memory hole.

 

[boxes]

Sure it was a great strategy...killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's while trying to win the peoples hearts and minds and at the same time draining the countries oil and placing in a government of US lackeys like they did with Afghanistan! Where are you Christian morals?!

Have you ever read the OT, we were being really nice compared what God told isreal to do to other nations, I am ready for the USA to start comming down on these clowns OT style.

The NT christian morals refered to an individuals actions within his community, how you interact with your neighbor. This does not apply to national militarys and world wide military actions, that stuff is in Gods hands and if he wants to throw down there will be hell to pay. Even in the OT some of the patriacrchs would be thinking wow how long is god going to allow these clowns to exist and soon enough he wiped them out.

These nations worship buhda and other various pagan gods, even if christians in america are not perfect we are still christians. Thats just teh way it is.

 

[Gracchus]

This is so frivolous and basically hyperbole. The United States did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians upon invading Iraq and never intended to.

You are right. It is very hard to know how much "collateral damage" was done.

You can foot that at the blame of the 'Iraqi' Insurgency that oppose not only US forces there but the post 2003 Iraqi Government as well as religious sects when it pleases them.

Yes, it is so unreasonable of them to go to such lengths to throw out the foreign invaders and their quisling puppet government.

They're so useful towards freedom and virtuously anti-imperialist that they often bomb marketplaces and mosques at random.

They don't want freedom. They want Sharia Law. They want the invaders out. And they don't bomb at random. It is just that they are willing to inflict lots of "collateral damage" to take out their intended targets.

Still, we can't have them running their own country. They might not run it the way we want them to.

 

[KBD]

There is no good reason as in 'justified' reason as to why we went to war with Iraq. The real reason is locked up in G.W. Bush's head somewhere, but a probable guess is that he wanted to finish his dad's war with Saddam, and his dad's pals were urging him on.

 

[razeontherock]

1- Saddam Hussein was evil, and an oppressor , and was threatening to the world that he had weapons of mass destruction , but that isn't the main reason ...

2- After 9-11 , we ( the USA ) needed a " hub " in the middle east to basically keep troops . As George W. Bush said " If we keep the terrorists on the run over there, we won't have to worry about them over here "

He was very correct, since 9 -11 -2001 there wasn't diddly poo done on US soil by terrorists . It was a great strategy . Weapons of mass destruction or not the plan worked quite well

Wait! You're not aware of all the terror attempts, that have been foiled on domestic soil? Well, neither am I; but I am aware of many, in a very small (and low priority) geographic area. Only because I know a few people in that field of employment, and have their confidence. Do you have any idea how much OT we've paid law enforcement, exclusively to keep tabs on the Muslim community? It's staggering! And almost all of it has discovered that they are indeed peaceful people. This is what makes intel so valuable; we just need to follow up on the few bad apples.

Don't get me wrong, things would be much worse if we hadn't taken the fight to them. (And I'm pretty amazed we didn't round up the whole Muslim community, like we did to the Japanese in WW 2, but I digress)

 

[razeontherock]

Well, let's be fair. The only thing missing was the regiment of missionaries.

Nope sorry - present and accounted for.

 

[razeontherock]

According to my understanding, the reason we invaded Iraq was for the following reason.
First we must go back to the late 1970’s to early 1980’s when Iran was our enemy because the shaw of Iran had taken some Americans as hostages

While your summary is correct you've gotta go back WAY further than that! It really is sordid ...

 

[razeontherock]

The problem with telling that story to those of us who lived through it is that you can't really shove memories down the memory hole.

Then why did you leave out the part that Saddam violated the terms of his cease fire, and we were more than justified to open fire at will, without warning, years before we did? (And we gave extraordinarily ample warning, with very doable terms of peace which could have avoided the whole thing)

I mean I do so like to give people the benefit of the doubt ...

 

[GA777]

War is nearly always about money or land. Sometimes it is a distraction from domestic problems. Often it serves several purposes at once.

Iraq was definitely about oil. Saddam Hussein was undercutting the prices set by OPEC. He had to go. It also provided the illusion of vengeance for the attack on the World Trade Center. Let's face it, a reason does not have to be plausible to win the acceptance of those of less than average intelligence who comprise fully half the population.

The only time I agree with you on some point

 

[razeontherock]

So now you 2 are in full agreement that all US elected officials are "of less than average intelligence," since it was passed by Congress. Good to know.

 

[Skavau]

You are right. It is very hard to know how much "collateral damage" was done.

It is hard to know, but you smear what was done by suggesting that hundreds of thousands were killed by US troops when you really can't know that.

Yes, it is so unreasonable of them to go to such lengths to throw out the foreign invaders and their quisling puppet government.

So I take it you believe that Al-Qaeda derive from Iraq, do you? Or Iranian destabilization is national resistance?

They don't want freedom. They want Sharia Law. They want the invaders out. And they don't bomb at random. It is just that they are willing to inflict lots of "collateral damage" to take out their intended targets.

Their intended targets often as not include rival religious factions.

Still, we can't have them running their own country. They might not run it the way we want them to.

I wouldn't hand over governorship of a nation to religious thugs and fascists either.

 

[Gracchus]

Then why did you leave out the part that Saddam violated the terms of his cease fire, and we were more than justified to open fire at will, without warning, years before we did? (And we gave extraordinarily ample warning, with very doable terms of peace which could have avoided the whole thing)

I mean I do so like to give people the benefit of the doubt ...

I didn't leave that part out. We ignored the "weapons of mass destruction" because we knew that Saddam had used the ones we had given him and we had no reason at all to believe he had made his own. The charge that he had weapons of mass destruction was simply a confabulation. If we were going to go to war because someone had weapons of mass destruction, we could have attacked ourselves, because we have the largest stockpiles in the world.

We went to war because Saddam was undercutting the oil prices set by OPEC. The war also rallied support for Bush's failing presidency, and it is always nice to kill two birds. In essence, Bush, Cheney and Co. murdered fifty thousand American troops and unnumbered Iraqis, to protect the profits of the global oil cartel, of which the Bush family is a partial owner.

 

[Wayte]

So now you 2 are in full agreement that all US elected officials are "of less than average intelligence," since it was passed by Congress. Good to know.

They were tlaking about the average person. Of course the folks in congress are intelligent; they need to be to lie at the caliber they do.

 

[Gracchus]

It is hard to know, but you smear what was done by suggesting that hundreds of thousands were killed by US troops when you really can't know that.

I don't remember that I used any numbers. Perhaps you have conflated me with someone else. I do seem to recall that some such numbers were reported in the British medical journal, "The Lancet".

So I take it you believe that Al-Qaeda derive from Iraq, do you?

It is my understanding that al Qaeda is an international organization of Muslim fundamentalists. It's late leader, (assuming he's really dead, and not just back home taking an advance on his seventy-two virgins), was, as I understand, from Saudi Arabia.

Or Iranian destabilization is national resistance?

Resistance to foreign occupation is almost always destabilizing. That is the whole point.

Their intended targets often as not include rival religious factions.

No doubt.

I wouldn't hand over governorship of a nation to religious thugs and fascists either.

I should hope not, but would you hand it over to foreign invaders and their quislings?

Oh, and Iraq, in case you had forgotten, is not ours to hand over in any event. It belongs, if it belongs to anyone, to the Iraqi, people to do with as they see fit.

 

[Buzzy]

I know a lot of Kurds in Iraq who are only alive because the US invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. Kurdistan is the only safe place in Iraq to be Christian and I pray for them daily.

 

[okafor]

I In essence, Bush, Cheney and Co. murdered fifty thousand American troops and unnumbered Iraqis, to protect the profits of the global oil cartel, of which the Bush family is a partial owner.

Nearly every investor, and certainly every union and retirement pension fund is a partial owner of global oil. Perhaps you should be condemning yourself for those profits.

 

[Skavau]

I don't remember that I used any numbers. Perhaps you have conflated me with someone else. I do seem to recall that some such numbers were reported in the British medical journal, "The Lancet".

You didn't, but you agreed with another user who made the pointless and unverifiable claim that the United States killd hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

It is my understanding that al Qaeda is an international organization of Muslim fundamentalists. It's late leader, (assuming he's really dead, and not just back home taking an advance on his seventy-two virgins), was, as I understand, from Saudi Arabia.

So Al-Qaeda do not constitute nationalist resistance, then.

I sincerely hope you don't believe conspiracy theories regarding Bin Laden's death?

Resistance to foreign occupation is almost always destabilizing. That is the whole point.

That wasn't my point. My point was that under no credible circumstances can those resisting the post-Saddam Iraq & the US forces there be considered part of homegrown Iraqi resistance based solely in patriotism.

I should hope not, but would you hand it over to foreign invaders and their quislings?

No I wouldn't. I'd certainly support any troops there attempting to stabilise a nation after removing its previous fascist regime.

Oh, and Iraq, in case you had forgotten, is not ours to hand over in any event. It belongs, if it belongs to anyone, to the Iraqi, people to do with as they see fit.

Such is the poison of the idea of self-determination. A nation should not have the right to terrorise and subjugate its own population, for example even if those who do it have been democratically elected. That is language of extreme cultural relativism.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I didn't want to start another thread, but why did US invade Vietnam and why did that war go on so long?

If it is just historical 'fact' then history is a very slow moving forum, I opened the thread 'How many were killed in the Vietnam War', the closest guess anyone got, even using wikipedia was 2% of the true figure, they don't seem to know much history in there:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7474967/

and I opened one on the Domino Theory:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7586365/

If you want a faster forum there is this one but the question has to be of an ethical nature. You should start a thread on it, at the very least to give something of substance to argue instead of the endless homosexuality stuff that usually goes on here

 

[razeontherock]

I didn't leave that part out. We ignored the "weapons of mass destruction" because we knew that Saddam had used the ones we had given him and we had no reason at all to believe he had made his own. The charge that he had weapons of mass destruction was simply a confabulation. If we were going to go to war because someone had weapons of mass destruction, we could have attacked ourselves, because we have the largest stockpiles in the world.

We went to war because Saddam was undercutting the oil prices set by OPEC. The war also rallied support for Bush's failing presidency, and it is always nice to kill two birds. In essence, Bush, Cheney and Co. murdered fifty thousand American troops and unnumbered Iraqis, to protect the profits of the global oil cartel, of which the Bush family is a partial owner.

Pure prejudice. This is what European enlightenment means? (Not to mention completely avoiding the point)