Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The war in Iraq was started to protect the Petro-dollar, thus continuing to secure inelastic demand for the U.S. dollar.
Yes, it was built 100% on lies and treasonous actions. 9/11 was created by the Bush Administration (anyone with an engineering degree knows that a jet plane cannot topple a skyscraper) to push through the Patriot Act and "justify" military excursions into Iraq. Iraq decided not to sell oil in U.S. dollars. Every country that has done so has felt the taste of the U.S. military.
We can't return to an isolationist stance; our prominence among the industrialized democracies, and the fact that there are some people who will condemn us no matter what we do (just as there are some people on either side of the nation's current polarization who will attack any Administration who can't meet their "litmus test") guarantees that unenviable position.
So exactly how do we determine which of the globe's malcontents are a threat, and which aren't? It's clear that we missed the mark with bin Laden (and that should not be a partisan issue), and the belief that we could not afford a "second guess" was far more prevalent in 2002-03 than it is at present, when hindsight is (as always) 20/20. But the is a large group of new participants at this site who were too young to form an opinion at that time, and it's clear that an oversimplified argument is being peddled to them.
If our arguments are oversimplified, expose them. Personally, I don't think it's a question of oversimplification - it's just that in this case, it really is that simple. No legally or morally valid justification, period. We're on Page 2, and I've not yet seen anyone mount a counterargument against that point.
The war in Iraq was justified, but the loss of even one galant soldier make me depressed and sick not withstanding injury. As Viet Nam medic I treated horrible injuries as well s those of the enemy. So why do I feel Bush was right? He was religated to the input from key influencers ie, U.S. intelligence, CIA, internal Iraqis being percecuted, our leading military advisors, alliies concerns, threat of advancing efforts by Hussain to develop dirty bombs at a very minimum (spent milions on East German /Russian technology and tons of yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Hussain posed a major threat down the road to nearby countries ,his own people and looming was a blockade to oil of which we have an obvious interest. Prior to our aggression Hussain had billions of dollars of ordinance (munitions, rockets, firearms, nerve gas, and tons of explosives) to Syria via commercial airlines flying night and day)
The military uncovered a cache of yellowcake 250 tons in Tabitha (spell?) early on that red flagged an effort to produce WMD. Rumor has it the Canadians purchased the cake for eventual nuke plant use. So we needed to send a signal to ALL radical Arabs that their moon god will not protect them if you mess with freedom!
With respect to policing the world we have to be more selective and what may seem a contradiction, I truely believe we have lowered the bar in policing Africa. If our government continues to wear blinders then we need to muster a few thousand of my sharpshooting sniper boys and get public support for a mercenary move aimed at initially taking out all key regime (rebel factions) leaders and the camps
of the demonic murderers. There are four leaders and staff that would be targeted first.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-21-2014 at 12:10 PM..
Reason: Fixed formatting. In the future I would appreciate you doing this yourself -thanks!
We can't return to an isolationist stance; our prominence among the industrialized democracies, and the fact that there are some people who will condemn us no matter what we do (just as there are some people on either side of the nation's current polarization who will attack any Administration who can't meet their "litmus test") guarantees that unenviable position.
So exactly how do we determine which of the globe's malcontents are a threat, and which aren't? It's clear that we missed the mark with bin Laden (and that should not be a partisan issue), and the belief that we could not afford a "second guess" was far more prevalent in 2002-03 than it is at present, when hindsight is (as always) 20/20. But the is a large group of new participants at this site who were too young to form an opinion at that time, and it's clear that an oversimplified argument is being peddled to them.
We've created a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, but I'm an advocate of non-interventionism going forward. We don't need be to isolationist (and we shouldn't be), but we're overstepping our bounds way too frequently and in too many places (in my opinion).
Was the Iraq War justified or was it a totally unnecessary war?
It was a complete perversion of the American political system to use military power for the benefit of:
1. Big oil
2. the Saudi Royals
3. Cheney's Halliburton
4. Blackwater (or whatever corporate moniker they're using this month)
5. any number of military contractors
To a lesser but still considerable extent:
6. Iran
7. Israel
All at the expense of:
1. the American taxpayer
2. thousands of American families
3. hundreds of thousands of Iraqi familes
4. many American allies
I said from the beginning, that W. had a woody for Saddam Hussein before he was ever even "elected."
The fact that they LIED to the American Public and relied upon the patriotic fever that developed after 9/11 to steam roll us into invasion makes me ILL....
My gut is not as articulate as Albert the Crocodile, but his post details EXACTLY why we never had any business in Iraq in the first place.....
It was a complete perversion of the American political system to use military power for the benefit of:
1. Big oil
2. the Saudi Royals
3. Cheney's Halliburton
4. Blackwater (or whatever corporate moniker they're using this month)
5. any number of military contractors
To a lesser but still considerable extent:
6. Iran
7. Israel
All at the expense of:
1. the American taxpayer
2. thousands of American families
3. hundreds of thousands of Iraqi familes
4. many American allies
Incorrect assessment.
Yes, it benefitted those in question but the broader picture is geopolitics. U.S. foreign policy is dedicated to preserving the Petro-dollar. The U.S. military keeps the greenback strong. That is why the Obama administration has no affect on our geopolitical stance in the Middle East. When people decide to circumvent the rules (selling oil in U.S. dollars), we go in there (Libya) and Moderator cut: .
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-22-2014 at 09:57 AM..
Reason: language
Total waste of money, lives and time. Iraq is worse now than ever and we used our solders as pawns without regard for their lives at all. The bush/cheny clan just used 9/11 and America's fear to invade to make Haliburton piles of money. One big scam!
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,156,795 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
......
That viewpoint hardly conforms to the present day "pop wisdom" of attributing the entire action to a personal grudge. Remember, the action was heavily debated and sanctioned by Congressional actions before actual military engagement began, and the report of U N advisor Hans Blix would not have been possible without the oversight of Western observers and troops.
And that point is seldom acknowledged by people who wish to dismiss the entire action as a personal vendetta, and whose message is largely directed at people who were under the age of ten, or younger, at the time of the conflict.
The war against Panama to extract Noriega was a personal vendetta (of the Bush family). Not Iraq, which was mainly about Cheney returning a favor to his old employer, Halliburton, who presumably had greased the skids so that he could become VP. In general otherwise, it was drumming up business for the defense industries which so heavily donate to both parties.
It wasn't about getting Iraq's oil, as commonly thought back then (blood for oil). It's much cheaper to simply buy oil than conquer a whole country to get it - they have to sell it just as much as we need to buy it.
Lots of ordinarily peaceable citizens were fooled into believing that Iraq was developing WMD including nukes with which to dominate the Middle East ...... including, shamefully enough, me. Nukes in the hands of dictators is my personal bugaboo. It turned out that the highest levels of the Bush administration knew very well that the evidence they presented to the world was bogus. Thus ended my political innocence.
Clearly it was a just war. Didn't they bomb Pearl Harbor and invade Louisiana? Let's not forget the weapons of mass destruction that they may have had but did not get used - obviously against America. The sinking of the Maine (or was it Guam?) was another important factor.
Either you're for us, or you're against us!
Shake that flag! Fly that fist!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was the Iraq War justified or was it a totally unnecessary war?
