Should we have really gone to Iraq? - I've added to this.

I don't know about you, but i dont think the Allied Forces should have ever gone to Iraq.
Not only did they bomb towns, but Iraq didn't even want them there in the first place. From what i've heard the only reason that U.S, Aus, and Brit forces were deployed is because George Bush and his followers (or the U.N as they call themselves) made up some story about there being weapons of mass-destruction hidden in Iraq. Were there any threats against U.S.A? Were there any against Australia? Any against Britain? No. in fact, the only reason forces were sent to Iraq is because Bush, wanted to harvest the place!

And from what i know, the only thing that's come out of this "mission", is that Saddam was captured. You know what else has happened? NOTHING! Sure, towns have been destroyed, extremists have been killing hostages and innocent people, all because the Allied Forces wont leave. In my opinion, we should never have deployed troops to Iraq.

What are your views?

P.S- Please don't think that i'm blaming the U.S, i'm blaming Bush, Howard and the U.N.


-After reading some of the responses, i have decided to add some more.

As MrJingles said: "Look at the circumstances, Iraq and Afghanistan are the two nerdy skinny kids who get picked on at school. The U.S is the giant football player, do you really think that these two nerds are gonna start a fight with the football player? "

Does anyone really think that a country like Iraq or Afghanistan really has the balls to wage an attack on U.S.A? Does anyone remember what happened after Pearl Harbour?

And don't lecture me about there not being any attacks...there have been attacks, but not by countries! The attacks were done by EXTREMISTS GROUPS. Did any country take resposnibilty for 9/11?

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by AliensExist182]

What I find interesting is how hard it is to find out in the general media an estimate of how many civilians have been killed in Iraq... perusing the net I got a figure of 100,000... which doesn't really have much credibility because as opposed to U.S. Army casualties, close to no one is really keeping count. Which in my view points to another proof of a voluntary or involuntary de-humanization of Iraqis...

Another short research I did tonight... people keep making parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, because of the key word "quagmire".

It's true that in late 2003 the war in Iraq surpassed the three first years of the Vietnam war in terms of U.S. casualties (393 deaths). But it must be pointed out that we are still very far from the 58,000 casualties at the end of a decade of war in Vietnam. As of today, there were 814 U.S. casualties, 924 coalition casualties total. The average for each one of the 14 years of the Vietnam war is 4142.

Of course, these figures don't take escalation into consideration. The Vietnam war didn't escalate until two or three years into the conflict. Who knows what may happen if this conflict escalates... either in Iraq, Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern fields of operation.

We will for sure get bashed on this subject!!! I agree with you 100% on the matter. Lets not forget though that the U.N. didnt back or support the U.S. in the begining and also Russia had a big problem with the U.S. going in. Also I believe that If we go after Korea then that will be the start of WW3. They did in fact say that they had wmd that could reach the U.S. and they are aimed at several U.S. cities............and that they would use them if if we invaded them.

Now back on topic, Saddam was a threat to us as far as we were concerned , but in his eyes we were a threat to his country. So whos right and whos wrong? I believe a strong part of his capture had to do with taking the publics eyes off of one thing and onto another.

Question for you,
What two families are the largest shareholders in the oil industry?

Answer...............Bush family and Bin Laden family( so i have read on several sites and heard from several people, but I cannot assure its complete accuracy)


Just remember............It all boils down to American Hipocracy

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by DipSchnit]

Well Alien my views are certainly more informed than yours for the following.

First, I know enough history of Saddam to realize that the "WMDs" were not "made-up" they simply were wrong about his current capabilities (keep in mind that Saddam did nothing to prove he had none).

Second I know enough to realize that more important to the US than any threat against itself by Iraq (which was minimal) was threats to neighbors by Iraq (which was significant).

Third I obviously read more about business than you do to know enough that Bush has made no money nor anyone who will significantly alter his campaign, so the idea of going to Iraq for "money" or to "harvest the place" is rediculous and unfounded.

I also know enough to know that we did not bomb "cities".

Bombing cities is a tactic we did in WW2, where 90% of cities would be destroyed (99% in some cases with Germany and Japan all by conventional methods, Nuclear weapons destroyed 40% and 70% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively).

We bombed military targets in Iraq and we hit them with the greatest of accuracy.

Also a lot has been going on in Iraq since then, local elections for one, that's a great improvement.

And it's better to fight the extremists there than it is to fight them over here, so that's another benefit.

In my opinion you don't fully know what's going on in Iraq, or any of the reasons we went there, or what America's stance on dealing with regional threats is.

Firstly ALien your obviously from Australia coz never before have i seen anyone include Aus on this site when mentioning the coalition, let alone mentioning them before the UK and Howard before Blair... buts that ok just pointing that out. Its good to see more people from Aus on here coz maybe then we can discuss politics closer to home.

Yes your right, the war should never have started. It is motivated by Bush's private agenda and for the wealth of big american corporations like haliburton (keep in mind its not for bush directly, but the companies whi got the contracts will probably be companies who donate huge amounts into bush's electoral campaign. Also Pappa Bush didnt get Saddam so Baby Bush wanted to finish the job.

The WMD's and the link to Al-Qaeda were non-exsistent despite what people want to tell you. Yes they found a sarin gas shell and i think a mustard gas shell, but they are hardly WMD's and probably came from the militants who have flocked to iraq AFTER the Coalition invaded. Note AFTER, they werent there BEFORE. The invasion has made Iraq a mecca for the terrorists as they have a place they can go and take on the West face to face. And after the coalition leave Iraq will become a terror haven coz thats what happens when a western country comes in, uninvited, kills civilians, destroys houses, abuses prisoners then tells you its for your own good. Yeah sure they got rid of Saddam, but many Iraqis dont see the situation as any better than before or likely to get any better. and i can pretty much guarantee you that democracy will not work in Iraq or Afghnistan coz there are just too many factions fighting for power and once the coalition leaves the tribal war will begin. But thats what the USA wants, one less country that disagrees with it, and one more country with a bunch of terrorist just waiting to attack. Coz the more the USA pushes terrorism, and the more attacks there are around the world, the more legitimate it looks when the USA start bombing poor arab countries for thei oil

Originally posted by FreeMason

Second I know enough to realize that more important to the US than any threat against itself by Iraq (which was minimal) was threats to neighbors by Iraq (which was significant).

I believe all your points are false, but I had a question about this specific one. If Iraq was such a threat to his neighbors, why didn't his neighbors do anything to stop him? Why didn't they help us do anything to stop him? Maybe, let us fly a jet over their country or something. I contend he was trapped in a box, and made impotent by diplomatic sanctions and a threat of force the international community, as in the first Gulf invasion.

I don't think BUSH should have gone into Iraq the way he did! Iraq was contained..crap we gave em' 30 days warning. Just enough time to hide WMD. The people of Iraq needed our ASSISTANCE not a rape and pilage. It makes me sick to think we would go in and cause more caos and fear unless we stick to helping the people there. I have several friends(in the Army and Marines) over there and they e-mail with reports that they are mainly re-establishing electricity, water, roads, schools, hospitals etc. I just hope we don't leave the people over there more vulnarable by leaving too soon. Bush had to finish the pissin' contest. Bushes motives were not "THE AMERICAN Way, not mine anyway. I watched Cheney since he was a Rep. here in Wyoming where I live. In 88' he was talking about cleaning out the Persian Gulf. Halliburton. Everyone here knows the about Halliburton. I do believe the media is one sided, to say the least!

First curme, none of my points are false, they are simplified but not false, you just know nothing about current global politics and so your views on the world are horribly mistaken.

Second there are many reasons for the region not dealing with Iraq, but the main reason was the last time another Islamic nation fought Iraq they lost 1 million people. That weighs heavily when the only surrounding powers have about 1 million people or less, save Saudi Arabia which has 22 million people abouts (?).

Only Iran could really face Iraq, and they were the ones who previously lost 1 million people in a war with Iraq, they had no interest in doing that again.

No, we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. Sure it's nice that there's one less bad guy we'll have to deal with in this world, but really, nothing has been proven to show that Iraq was an 'immediate threat' to the USA. As for liberating the Iraqi people, in my opinion, that's something they should do themselves. It's sad that we've lost some good, young Americans to 'free' the Iraqi people, most of which probably couldn't give a damn about us (AT BEST).

A agree with many of you here, I do not believe that the United States should have gone into Iraq to begin with

WHERE ARE THE WMDS?

I also hate when people go and say "oh well would you rather Sadam still be in charge?" Idiot! Of course not, but by that logic the US should invade dozens of other countries on every continent, and until the Americans start truly acting against global tyrants instead of just those that anger the US's agenda then silence!

I believe that President Bush's actions were criminal in regards to the preparations for war, and he should be brought before a United Nations court to stand trial.

I am also glad though that there were countries like France and Germany that stood up for what was right from the begining, even though doing so earned them nothing but scorn by many Americans. A true friend has the heart to tell you when you are wrong.

Now however, I do not believe that America should just pull out, the power void would ensure a ready supply of terrorists for years to come, and the Iraqi people deserve better than that.

What needs to happen is that America has to stop making war against everyone and start thinking of the war on terrorism as more than just a war of guns and bombs. We need to win the support of the world's people first.

My heart does go out to all of those serving in the American miltary though, they are the ones who have really been let down and they are the ones who have to live daily with the tragic mistakes and lies of Bush.

~Astral

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by The Astral City]

If you ask the soldiers, they think we should be over there. They say that their is so much money in Iraq but that the people don't have it.

The humanitarian part in me thinks we should be over there and in time the Iraqis will be better off. The politician in me sees no reason whatsoever to be over there.

What, have you been asleep for the last 20 or so years?

The fact that Hussein was in league with terrorists is no new point, neither is his chemical and biological weapons. The Czechs and the French knew he was in cahoots with Al Quada, if you prefer not to believe the U.S.

As far as bombing towns, what planet are you from? Seriously? This war has been the most polite war ever pursued in human history. Of course, I assume you believe what we should do is sit around and allow our enemies to gather forces and blow up buildings as they please.

We are taking the fight to them, across the globe, so that we do not have to fight it here. Don't like it? Tough.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What, have you been asleep for the last 20 or so years?

The fact that Hussein was in league with terrorists is no new point

Absolutely correct in giving these youngsters a dressing down, TC!

The 1984 photograph of Hussein and Rumsfeld shaking hands bears excellent testimony to that, 20 years on.

Originally posted by MrJingles
If you ask the soldiers, they think we should be over there. They say that their is so much money in Iraq but that the people don't have it.

I was there when Baghdad fell (not to be misleading, I was in Kuwait when Baghdad fell, and went into Iraq soon after, before the rest of the Iraq had been conquered), and all the people I know didn't think we should of been there. At first, to the people who were indifferent, the extra money was nice (the combat pay, no taxes) but now even they say that the Army can keep there money. They don't want to go back, and we should of never of gone in the first place.

As far as bombing towns, what planet are you from? Seriously? This war has been the most polite war ever pursued in human history. Of course, I assume you believe what we should do is sit around and allow our enemies to gather forces and blow up buildings as they please

My feeling was that if we don't do anything to them and leave them alone, they would leave us alone. Every action deserves a reaction: 9/11 was a reaction, to what action, I don't know.

Look at the circumstances, Iraq and Afghanistan are the two nerdy skinny kids who get picked on at school. The U.S is the giant football player, do you really think that these two nerds are gonna start a fight with the football player?

Originally posted by The Astral City
I am also glad though that there were countries like France and Germany that stood up for what was right from the begining, even though doing so earned them nothing but scorn by many Americans. A true friend has the heart to tell you when you are wrong.
[Edited on 31-5-2004 by The Astral City]

Yes lets bring France and Germany into this equation. The voices of reason and experience. They will set the arrogant US straight.

Did they really have a moral objection to war or was it not in their financial interest? Yes, I am talking about the food for oil program. www.atsnn.com...

So lets stick to the issue of whether the US should have gone into Iraq and not how your country is supposedly morally superior to mine.

Originally posted by The Astral City
WHERE ARE THE WMDS?

.........and until the Americans start truly acting against global tyrants instead of just those that anger the US's agenda then silence!

I believe that President Bush's actions were criminal in regards to the preparations for war, and he should be brought before a United Nations court to stand trial.

I am also glad though that there were countries like France and Germany that stood up for what was right from the begining, even though doing so earned them nothing but scorn by many Americans.

~Astral

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by The Astral City]

You mean oust tyrants like in Haiti this year when we stopped a bloodbath from ocurring by doing what was necessary when your beloved UN was still talking about the same crap they always do but at the end do nothing?

And....you are telling us to be quiet....? who in the hell do you think you are french fry? Oh that's right....France helped China with military games in trying to show some muscle and coerce the Taiwanese people not to proclaim "independance"...go figure....France was in with China trying to silence Taiwan into submission...

See this link for information.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Presiden Bush actions criminal....humm...how about the 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus that the French helped to annihilate in Rwanda...

See link for more information.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or what both France and Germany did but abet genocide, helping in the ethnic cleansing of non-muslim blacks in Sudan...

" For the past 20 years, the regime in Khartoum has bombed, starved, and enslaved black Southern Sudanese with impunity in an effort to subject them to Islamic rule. As a result, over two million black non-Muslims have perished. A further five million have been driven off their land.

Sudanese slaves -- mainly women and children -- are routinely beaten, raped, genitally mutilated, forced to convert to Islam and racially abused. The scale of this ''crime against humanity'' -- as slavery is identified in international law -- is enormous. Credible estimates of the number of Sudan's slaves range from tens of thousands to over 200,000.

What did the Franco-German duo do? It led the EU in the opposite direction. France provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Driving black, non-Muslims out of their homes creates greater security for the investments of oil firms like Total Fina (France/Belgium) and the German engineering giant Mannesmann. "

Excerpted from.
www.frontpagemag.com...

BTW, if you mean to say that France and many countries in Europe are neo-commies, we know this...

France and Germany standing up for what is right........read above link.....


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Muaddib]

To stay in topic whether or not we should have gone to Iraq, yes we should have. Some other members and I have posted throughout the forum links to reliable information in which there is, or was, a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Also Saddam did proclaim before 9/11 in Arabic news channels that America was going to start recieving some surprise attacks, or something like that. I have also posted links in the forums, do a search and you will find the.

"Saddam Warned of WTC Attack Before 9/11, Praised bin Laden Afterward

Why did the Bush administration immediately suspect that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks when there was no evidence of any connection, as Richard Clarke and other Bush critics maintain?

Maybe it was because there was indeed evidence - very dramatic evidence, in fact - in the form of warnings in the state-run Iraqi press that such an attack was coming, along with praise for Osama bin Laden and his kamikaze hijackers in the days after the World Trade Center was destroyed."

Excerpted from.
www.newsmax.com...


BTW, perhaps we should ask the French were some of the WMD are in Iraq, since they wanted to give Arab countries WMD, nukes among them, to Arab extremists against Israel.... Also, do a search for Russian link to wmd in Iraq and see what Russian defectors have to say about WMD in Iraq....i posted several links about this too.

Some links on this.
www.frontpagemag.com...

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Muaddib]

Whether we should or should not have gone to Iraq has been discussed extensively.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And many, many, many more threads.