What would be the reason? I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't to establish some sort of military buffer between Iran and Israel. Can't really see the reason for it to be anything directly to do with Saddam, or anything else. I don't think our efforts there have really done much of anything to protect us against another 911 type of attack.
-
-
There's certainly not a buffer there now. Al-Qaeda has taken over Ramadi and Fallujah and flying their black flags there. -
There's 3 reasons any nation does anything as evidenced in history.
1. Money
2. Land
3. Religion (usually just a farce to get 1 or 2).
You pick.Comment
-
What's the point of bringing it up? It's done, move on!Comment
-
If you are really interested in the "why" - and want to go beyond the bumper sticker slogans and simplistic hindsight philosophizing, you need to read the entire Iraq War Resolution:
It passed in the House 297-133 and in the Senate 77-23. WMDs was one of 23 resolutions in the bill authorizing use of force in Iraq. Unfortunately the White House decided to most heavily emphasize the WMDs to the public. It was the most easily relatable to average Americans and everyone (Democrats and Republicans)who had seen the intelligence thought WMDs were there. Remember George Tenet, head of the CIA told GWB that it was, in his words "a slam dunk" Oops! I think the other reasons were enough to go in and depose the regime. Spending the blood and treasure on the nation building part is a whole nother' argument.Last edited by jerp; 01-05-2014, 03:39 PM.Comment
-
You can always just skip over the thread if you have no point.Originally posted by tex4k View PostComment
-
WMDs were there. Now the same stash is in Syria causing grief.Originally posted by jerp View PostIf you are really interested in the "why" - and want to go beyond the bumper sticker slogans and simplistic hindsight philosophizing, you need to read the entire Iraq War Resolution:
It passed in the House 297-133 and in the Senate 77-23. WMDs was one of 23 resolutions in the bill authorizing use of force in Iraq. Unfortunately the White House decided to most heavily emphasize the WMDs to the public. It was the most easily relatable to average Americans and everyone (Democrats and Republicans)who had seen the intelligence thought WMDs were there. Remember George Tenet, head of the CIA told GWB that it was, in his words "a slam dunk" Oops! I think the other reasons were enough to go in and depose the regime. Spending the blood and treasure on the nation building part is a whole nother' argument.Comment
-
Originally posted by GarGuy View Post
Winner Winner Chicken dinner. They knew we were coming and moved them out.
Comment
-
I have brought that up many times in other discussions and forums.Originally posted by jerp View PostIf you are really interested in the "why" - and want to go beyond the bumper sticker slogans and simplistic hindsight philosophizing, you need to read the entire Iraq War Resolution:
It passed in the House 297-133 and in the Senate 77-23. WMDs was one of 23 resolutions in the bill authorizing use of force in Iraq. Unfortunately the White House decided to most heavily emphasize the WMDs to the public. It was the most easily relatable to average Americans and everyone (Democrats and Republicans)who had seen the intelligence thought WMDs were there. Remember George Tenet, head of the CIA told GWB that it was, in his words "a slam dunk" Oops! I think the other reasons were enough to go in and depose the regime. Spending the blood and treasure on the nation building part is a whole nother' argument.
For some reason many times those posts are ignored. I am assuming because it goes against their political rants.Comment
-
You are correct. There was a lot of soft intel saying that they had moved to Syria but either we couldn't prove it or didn't care too.Originally posted by GarGuy View Post
To the OP: There was a ton of reason we went in. One of the main one was to get rid of a Hitler like dictator. He was killing off his own people who were against him or not the same muslim tribe that he was. Also he wouldn't follow the treaty from the 90's. He kept giving the UN and the world the run around about letting in the weapon inspectors in everytime.Comment
-
We knew they moved them. The Russians did the transport. GW had a choice to just eat the blame or start WWIII. I don't agree with a lot of what GW did but I respect him for doing what he thought was right regardless of how it made him look. Im not just guessing on this. there are a lot of folks that know this.Originally posted by texas bound View PostComment
-
Never heard the Russian part of it but when I was over there you heard thingsComment
-
And all that because someone got butt hurt when the US stopped funding his war against Iran. Weird how things work out.Comment
-
We can't wipe out terrorism but military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the terrorists capabilities. It's a lot like spraying for cockroaches - can't get rid of them but it's still worth beating them back. Live and let live doesn't work. Other points like WMD's or the cruelty of Sadaam are minor compared to "providing for the common defense."Comment
-
It was not necessarily about 9-11. Way too much politicizing of the Iraq war. And the side that has you believing that it was solely about WMPs (who also had previously supported that position) has done a great disservice.
You had a country that way daily shooting at our airplanes that was reinforcing a no fly zone, had a reward out for the capture of an American pilot, failing to live up to its agreements as noted above, and yes he tried to assassinate GHWB (No. 41).
Now, if someone tried or succeeded in taking out bama, I think it would be universal support to retaliate.
And the current issues in Iraq are probably the result of the current administrations decisions.
Then finally consider what the situation would be if we had done nothing.Comment
Comment