Did America go to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons??

The title of this thread and others like it on the miriad of boards I visit has always seemed to come to one conclusion. And a false one to me. Many spout reasons for NOT going to war or invading a country for reasons believed to be dishonorable in nature. But I very seldon, almost EVER hear just how we should have anwered the call to arms other than that so called magic word, " Diplomacy" ! In order for any situation to benifit from this tactic, and it is a 'military tactic' both parties must agree on basic rules and follow them. In all instances that we have been involved in, in the last 50 years, only one party has ever had the best of intensions for the other party involved. That was the US. Why I say this is that when a conflict begins, regardless of stated goals or reasons, when all is said and done its 'We the People' of the US that pays to rebuild and try our very best to make amends for the conflict. Its not always possible because the other party in ALL past conflicts NEVER negotiated through Diplomatic talks in good faith. No one has come up with a way to 'gain peace' through negotiation. The parties we have dealt with have absolutly no empathy for the populace in they're own country except to control them in a manner that relies on subjugation of the basic human rights of the populace. Only force of arms has made a dent in they're thinking and usualy its not thrweats, only action that changes things. Before WW2 started, no less than three years of negotiations with German diplomats took place by all nations involved, including the US. Those negotiations helped give Hitler the time he needed to build his war machine. Its the exact same thing here in the middle east. There is no negotiating with the parties in this conflict because they have no intension of changing they'e stated goals. They pay lip service to whats expected in the MSM. Saddam did this for 5 years, ignoring the Great and Powerfull "UN" with impunity to further they're war machine. Its going to be the same for every single problem we face in trying to handle a situation that will, in the end, be at ours as well as your doorstep long before we realise it. every one of us that is NOT a muslim are the enemies of this radical movement. We have been the infidals for centuries and it sure doesn't look like ideas there will change any time soon. This is NOT something that came from the Christians either. They can't agree on which of Allahs sects they want to believe in any more that the Christian sects can in the rest of the world. Its ideology and that is why we fight. Which ideology you choose to follow is your decision. I believe most here will and have to choose freedom, regardless of religious ideology.

OK, I'm done with this rant...fire when ready folks, I'm in my bunker!!!

Zindo

The majority of the problem with the Iraq war is that it didnt need to be fought at the time it was initiated and if we had waited maybe it might not have been neccesary at all.

Saddam was a cruel and evil and the world is better off with out him, but a premptive war based on faulty intelligence is a no go, that is not what we in America are supposed to be about. It will take us years to earn back international trust if ever. The cost in American lives was never going to be worth it in the long run, ( I am not knocking the soldiers here, all 4 of my kids have fought in this war and I am a veteran of the first Gulf War). Another problem with this war is that we tried to do it on the cheap and it has cost us dearly in blood and money, you cannot control a country of 25 million people with 150,000 troops, especially once you have destroyed totally the infrastructure and governmental systems.

It is said the "surge" has worked and I hope this is the case and we will be able to exit and leave a solid democratic government in Iraq. I am leary of course because I can remember back in the 1960s we had "pacification" and then Vietnamization and that didnt turn out so well I hope for the sake of everyone involved we dont see the same result some years down the road.

The main problem Moslems have with us is that our government supports some really brutal and crappy governments in Moslem countries all in the name of oil unfortunately for us and them and until we get off the oil teat things will not change.

The al queda Moslems are a seperate breed from the average Moslems that I have met and known. Personally I dont consider them true Moslems they are more of a cult of personality around a couple of nutters who are nihlist and use Islam as a shield , they have set Islam back 100 years.

Before any action was to be taken against Iraq if any , we should have finished the Afghan war, (never start a new war when you are already fighting one) .

The present US admistration have totally screwed everything up from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo to torture , This is not what we as Americans are supposed to be about.

The MSM is just as guilty for this war as the government is I can remember them beating the drums for war daily leading up to the invasion, what sickens me is that now that things didnt go the way the Media expected, they turn on the administration with half truths and out right lies.

I expected the media to turn on the troops just as they have done I grew up during the Vietnam era and can remember some of the things said then, it is almost a mirror of now. My father did 3 tours in Nam I can remember in 1968 picking him up at the airport trying to get though protestors and spit and vicious things that were being said, those times made quite an impression on this 7 year old at the time.

So I think the better action at the time was to finish the Afghan war and contain Saddam for the duration, and then only if absolutely neccesary should we have taken him out.

If we wanted to end the Al Qaeda we have failed miserably, so that was not the objective.

If we wanted to put an end to Saddam, we did that long ago. Our men are still there, so that was not the objective.

If we wanted to get rid of WMD, there were none! So that was not the objective.

Clearly we are there pointlessly and endlessly because there was no real reason to ever be there. It was not to end terrorism, it was a profiteering opportunity for the Military Industrial Complex, and you just cannot get too much of a good thing. If two wars at a time is nice, then three is thrice!



[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

You truly hate the Constitution of the United States of America. It shows in every post you cast upon the "unknowing". What the heck is your point anyway? To make people smart? Make them wise up a little? Stop trying to be a revolutionary Eddie Vedder.

Glen Reynolds copycat? Or is Rush your higher authority?

Put down your shotgun for a moment, take a deep breath. Don't work for any more dead-end government jobs, it is only one step above receiving awards from their dreaded socialist programs anyway. You're too good for that kind of existence.

My recommendation is you go built a fortress somewhere in Montana and write a novel. Oh no, that has been done.

Do everyone a favor and just go back to school where you can really study history and work on your debating tactics.

I believe this video explains this issue...

Of course your opinion may vary...

Well, we went to war in Iraq for false reasons. My assumption would be false implies wrong on something that takes lives.

So I'm going with "yes" for my answer.

Project for the New American Century

www.oldamericancentury.org...

Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs
2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order

George W Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000. Immediately he appointed signatories of PNAC documents to the top levels of the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

Knowing what we know today, the invasion of Iraq was based on falsehoods and was an unnecessary and dangerous diversion from the effort to reduce terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslim anger at the United States is at an all time high. Iraq posed no threat to us and the process of containment was working. Most importantly, Iraq is in chaos, on the brink of civil war, and now a breeding ground for a hundred new Bin Ladens.

The PNAC members of our government told us that it would be “a cake walk”. That we would be greeted as “liberators”. That we’d see parades in the streets. Terribly undermanned, our military is in the middle of a quagmire where only the best case scenario was planned for.

The museums, the hospitals, the munitions depots, the nuclear facilities were left unprotected at the onset of the invasion. The ministry of oil was securely guarded.

Who has benefited from all of this at the expense of over a thousand US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives? The very arms and energy industries that funded the PNAC:

· Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney

· Bechtel, once headed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

· Trireme, a defense company started by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle shortly before the invasion

reply to post by Valhall

I think I would put it more as, the U.S. went to war for reasons other than stated. I don't know that I would say that they didn't have a good solid reason or good evidence. I just don't believe that they're telling everyone the correct reason that they invaded Iraq. I think we all know what that reason is. It's the same reason that Russia is involved in Georgia right now. Energy security and the power that comes with controlling the supply of energy . Well, that's my two cents anyway. Not that you wanted it.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Valhall

 

I think I would put it more as, the U.S. went to war for reasons other than stated. I don't know that I would say that they didn't have a good solid reason or good evidence. I just don't believe that they're telling everyone the correct reason that they invaded Iraq. I think we all know what that reason is. It's the same reason that Russia is involved in Georgia right now. Energy security and the power that comes with controlling the supply of energy . Well, that's my two cents anyway. Not that you wanted it.

Well, that's fine, dbates. I didn't say they "didn't have a good solid reason" but they didn't have good evidence - not for the reason they were giving at the time. I agree that the reason behind it and the reason behind what is happening in Georgia now is probably very similar.

I don't agree that lying about it is okay, or that doing it because of that reason is okay either.

It's called paragraphs.

reply to post by dbates



Rubbish,its no where no the same reason as Russia and Georgia-Or am i missing Iraq shelling a city full of amercians before the troops rolled in?

Iraq is a war crime,and those who lied to get us into it should be punished.

Cheese Foot: Let me tell ya'. See 'em out here all the time. Whinning. Crying for mamma.

Sure do. They're like these little fleas. Their call, and don't no one give a damn when they run out their heels. No Sir! Not in my neck of the woods...

I prefer not to call the conflict in Iraq a "war". It is clearly an invasion and occupation by the US that was disguised as "liberating" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's regime and looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction that could not be found. When one can not find the proof then one can not condemn another as guilty.

The US is always boasting how they have the best, well why did they not send their best crack bunch of snipers and other specialists who could have infiltrated Saddam's government from the inside ? Because the agenda required speed rather than stealth. Iraq's geographical location is, in my opinion, a key factor and you do need to Albert Einstein to figure out why the invasion and occupation of this land is so important to the corrupt US government and military.

What is being done to help these people now? Raiding their homes in the night and terrifying their families; taking away, imprisoning and torturing their men as they try to uncover Al Quaeda members. Ah yes...it helps to jangle the bones of the bogeyman Osama bin Laden (who is either dead or living with a new kidney on an idyllic island somewhere at the expense of US taxpayers ) to justify invading another country.

Iraqis were better off with the devil they knew.

My son is due to go to Iraq soon (Australian Army specialist) and that really pisses me off...and I am sorry to admit I do NOT like my country or the US. God help me if my son comes to harm because I WILL end my days in custody

It's all LIES and GREED

[edit on 13-9-2008 by resistancia]

Ok... l will put in my own two cents on this one. Saddam Hussein was going to go during the W. Bush administration. Anyone who follows the news would have known that. Besides the "obvious" reasons or even the "stated" reasons, Saddam had / was plotting the assassinate Bush the 1st.

See Article: Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people." U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.
After two months of investigation and mounting evidence, Clinton became convinced during two "exhaustive and exhausting" meetings last week that Iraq was indeed behind a foiled car-bomb plot to kill Bush during his visit to Kuwait April 14-16, a senior administration official said.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Now, after September 11th, the opening to actually take out the Saddam Regime was given. Public support was there. Now, we can all "armchair quarterback" which I am going to do right now because I believe the military execution was flawless but rushed. We had the time to "salvage" a good portion of the Iraqi army if we would have gotten to a few "helpful henchmen" who could have moved their divisions to a safe location until the American victory was complete and then utilized those forces to immediately police a good portion of the country. This would have gotten us out of there long ago. By the way, I applaud the removal of Saddam and the attempts made to truly free Iraq. I only question the planning & accountability of the Iraqis to govern themselves as it has taken way to long. We have many other things we can spend Billions of dollars on other than Iraq and many other uses for our military. Mexico comes to mind, I think it is long overdue to take out our "terrorist" drug lords who are killing off good people. Anyway, getting off subject. Saddam's regime was damned since 1993, all that was missing was public support to pull the trigger.

but a preemptive war based on faulty intelligence is a no go, that is not what we in America are supposed to be about.

Let me remind you what John Kerry said back in the 2004 election.

John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

www.boston.com...

So lets stop being naive about Iraq. The war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam as an imminent threat to our security or any involvement whatsoever with Osama Bin Laden or even “weapons of mass delusion.” It is time to grow up people if you are going to be taken seriously on a conspiracy forum.

Another problem with this war is that we tried to do it on the cheap and it has cost us dearly in blood and money, you cannot control a country of 25 million people with 150,000 troops, especially once you have destroyed totally the infrastructure and governmental systems.

You are absolutely right about this point and I agree completely.

The al queda Moslems are a separate breed from the average Moslems that I have met and known. Personally I don’t consider them true Moslems they are more of a cult of personality around a couple of nutters who are nihilist and use Islam as a shield, they have set Islam back 100 years.

On this point you are wrong. The only power that Al Queda has is the words of the Quran itself. If the fundamental beliefs of Islam support Osama Bin Laden and almost any Jihadist who attacks infidels. Muhammad himself committed acts of terrorism against civilians. Muhammad himself beheaded non believers.

It is irrelevant that “most” Muslims that you know do not follow Al Quieda and other fundamentalists agendas. What “is” important is that attacking infidels is a true core belief in Islam, despite the fact that few Muslims chose to carry out this fundamental belief. The mullahs and Islamic clerics can speak their hatred attack speeches uncontested because it IS what Islam is founded upon and it IS the exact actions that the founder of Islam himself conducted against non-believers.

All that modern Muslims can say about this is the same line that you have used that they have, “set Islam back 100 years.” In their eyes, this is a good thing, for setting them “back” is setting them “straight”.

You have to realize that western influence is seen as an attack upon the foundational beliefs of Islam. This is why they attack us. It is because Christian beliefs of “Love your neighbor” are against the teachings of Islam. They attack us for the same reason that they demand that anyone in their own countries that converts to Christianity be beheaded in public.

You people just want to continue to live in a world of make believe and fantasy when it regards the harsh realities of life. You want to continue to explain away the actions of a “few fundamentalists” because you want to ignore that what they are doing is exactly what their beliefs profess must be done.

I hate to be the one to slap you in the face with the truths of life but here they are.

The crusades were real
The Barbary Coast Wars were real
9\11 was real
The attack on the USS Cole was real
The murder of those who convert to Christianity is real
The Bosnian war and ethnic cleansing was real
The horrors religious warfare in Rwanda are real
ECT… ECT… ECT…

Islam has never, and can never, accept the continued existence of those who are non-Muslims. It is the written words of the Quran, and it cannot and is not disputed anywhere in the world.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Hot_Wings]