User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:36:39 AM EDT
[#1]
Your simple explanation apparently is beyond the grasp of a lot of people out there.
Why, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:47:18 AM EDT
[#2]
I was told at a briefing that the big picture is to have a central large Islamic country as a model democracy. This would show the other third world Islamic countries that there is economic growth and prosperity with a democracy rather than a warlord, dictator that's bent on overthrowing other countries to control the world’s oil. Or at least that's what I can understand from my notes that I took.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:48:17 AM EDT
[#3]
See the Memorial to Russian Schoolchilren thread, you'll know why we should be there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:54:14 AM EDT
[#4]
Because our "Intelligence" agencies fucked up royally, (as they did in 9/11), and gave us bad info......  Now we're stuck, with our very own "Tar Baby"..... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:58:55 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:59:07 AM EDT
[#6]
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sit around and bitch. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:00:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Rambosky is right; original plan was to get a democratic secular government in an Arab, mostly islamic country. Iraq fit the bill perfectly: abused citizenry of an already secular arab country, with enough oil to insure a good GNP to make everyone fat and happy. Then we build a couple bases there and commence to changing the middle east. What they didn't realize, is these islamics don't value freedom. They will get freedom in the afterlife. They only listen to the imam, and the imam want to keep their power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:02:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Following your reasoning we ought to have gone into Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:03:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Then we would REALLY be accused of pissing on the quaran
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:05:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Wouldn't work. Iraq CAN become a representative government precisely because the population was mostly secular and somewhat westernized before Gulf War One. They have a merchant class that can turn into a middle class, that's educated and used to having some of the good things in life. Saudi's population has been on the dole for decades---it's basically a feudal kingdom with welfare serfs ruled over by a monarchy, with the serfs kept in line only by demonization of the west fed to them by the government-sponsored Wahabi schools. If we were to go into Saudi, we'd have to kill just about every man, woman and child. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:07:59 AM EDT
[#11]
Saudi Arabia wasn't invading other countries and using poison gas to control it's own people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:11:03 AM EDT
[#12]
+1 Iraq is our FOB on the war against terrorists and the islamo-fascist states that support them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:12:04 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:12:34 AM EDT
[#14]
But it was their citizens hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:12:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Personally if I was making the argument I would leave 9/11 out of it completely. By mentioning it the other person automatically assumes you are trying to tie Iraq with the planning of and the act of what happened on 9/11.
The reason we went into Iraq was because after 12 years of Iraq giving us the run around with inspections in regards to WMD's, we saw Iraq as a threat to our security. Iraq was considered an enemy state that could provide terrorist with weapons to harm us in the future. It has also been proven that not only did Iraq have WMD's before the war, but also WMD's were found there after the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:13:35 AM EDT
[#16]
William Walker and other US citizens invaded Nicarague in the late 19th Century. After arresting him, should Nicaragua have declared war on the US? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:26:26 AM EDT
[#17]
The reason we went to war in Iraq was because we had a madman that we could never turn our back on was running a nation with the 4th largest army in the world. Containing Sadaam, (which we did successfully for 12 years) was doing almost nothing more than inflicting more suffering on the Iraqi people. Get one thing straight, we could never have turned our back on Iraq while Sadaam Hussein was in power. Even while he was contained, Sadaam consired with and supported terrorists that targeted America and Isreal. Also, the minute we turned our back on Sadaam, he would have without doubt or question begun development of weapons that with the intent of threating America. In addition, Sadaam Hussein was our monster. We made him, we gave him his fangs and when he got out of control we stuck him in a box with the Iraqi people hoping that peasants would oust one of the most powerful dictators in the world. The United States had a responsibility to the Iraqi people to remove the Sadaam Hussein from power. Now, we have a growing democracy that threatens the authortarian militant Islamic dictatorships in the middle east, and they are doing everything in their power to bring it down. Despite the best efforts of our enemies, and the enemies of a free Iraq the Iraqi people are learning to solve their own problems in their own way. The going is admittedly slow, but keep in mind that these people have been oppressed for 30 years. The cost to America for this campaign while regrettable has been amazingly low given the magnatude of what we are trying to accomplish. We will succeed in Iraq, and that success will make the world safer for Americans. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:27:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Post from liberty86:
As did every other 'intelligence' agency in the world! If we were all mistaken about Saddam and his WMD intentions, then we have the culprit who was responsible for this travesty in our clutches...in a jail cell in Baghdad, awaiting...justice. And isn't it strange, liberty86, that the very sort of 'intelligence' that MAY have been able to clue us in about the plans for Sept 11th, would require the very level and degree of snooping to uncover such 'intelligence' that you would find so objectionable were it to actually occur? Get your priorities straight, Sir! You either want to live in a police state where everyone must have national identity cards in order to move about, buy tickets, attend flight schools, rent automobiles, or you don't. Which is it?
The only thing that is sticking to this 'tar baby' is dead jihadists! Which is fine and well with me. I would rather that the citizens of Fallujah be facing the bombing, the deaths, the injuries caused by the jihadists than the citizens of any city in this nation. And the 'tar baby' in this scenario is Iraq, drawing all of these POSs from wherever they reside into a killing zone for our troops. Yep. I'm happy as Hades!  Eric The(Realpolitik)Hun 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:31:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Wow, just like the Crusades! How exciting! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:43:23 AM EDT
[#20]
+2 Iraq was the most convenient target after Afghanistan. SA is in the same catagory as Pakistan - nominaly friendly government that played both sides against the other in large part because we allowed them to. Iran is probably more important than Iraq, but practically speaking you have to go through Iraq to get to Iran. After January, once the US and Iraq elections are out of the way, I look for us to go after Iran on the pretext of 1) Nuclear Weapons and 2) Their support of terrorism against the democratically elected government of Iraq. 3) Harboring AlQueda members. We may support Russia in some action of their's first as a means of getting them on board. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:45:52 AM EDT
[#21]
Yes, but..............it wasn't sanctioned and orchestrated by their government. The US isn't responsible for every person that goes to another country to commits crimes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:49:17 AM EDT
[#22]
"Ting!" {sound of nail being hit squarely on the head} Can't add much to that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:55:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Post from N_Viejo:
Tell me, were the Turks three invasions of Central Europe, marching their armies to the Gates of Vienna twice within 150 years, also a part of the 'Crusades'? Not until after 1683 AD was Vienna, in Central Europe, considered safe enough become the Hapsburg Capital! Are they doing it again? From the EU Observer: "A PROMINENT businessman and politician of Turkish origins has turned Germany on its ear by reportedly telling fellow Turks that fecund Turkish women in the Federal Republic are accomplishing the conquest that Sultan Süleyman failed at before the gates of Vienna in 1683. "Vural Öger, who has made a vast fortune in the tourism industry by shuttling Turks to and from Germany, recently told Turkish guests at a dinner that he thought was private. A Turkish journalist was present, however, and soon the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany's leading newspapers, reported that Öger had told his friends: "What the good Sultan-Caliph Süleyman failed at, our fertile Turkish women are achieving in today's Germany." "Öger is a Social Democratic Party candidate for the European Parliament from Hamburg, where he will allegedly represent Germany. While his remarks have caused a furor in Germany, providentially undercutting efforts to "integrate" the Turks and other Muslims into German society, as well as damaging Turkey's efforts to gain admission to the Europe Union, they have all but been ignored in the international English-language media." http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=82&aid=16270>%20&aid=16270 This story was repeated in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on May 25, 2004. Hmmmm, this sounds precisely what Chairman Arafat always says about the Palestinians and the Israelis - 'We will outnumber them soon enough.' Eric The(RealPolitik)Hun |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:00:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Perhaps if you know absolutely nothing about history it's "just like the Crusades" to you. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:03:35 AM EDT
[#25]
We went into Iraq because it was the easiest place to set-up a base of operation. Now we can pull-out of Saudi Arabia and prepare to destabilize both Iran and SA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:51:56 AM EDT
[#26]
To kick Saddam's ass. Mission accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:06:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Following your reasoning we ought to have gone into Saudi Arabia.
sounds like a plan. If we were to go into Saudi, we'd have to kill just about every man, woman and child. ok...so what would be the downside...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 3:25:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Your reasoning is sound. The other posters are also correct. Carrot and stick approach. We make Iraq a place that the muslim heathens want to emulate. We also have a huge base of operations in case they need intimidation or persuading.
More then that, Iraq is a forced injection of our culture, from which they are certain to catch the disease. Nobody builds car bombs while they are eating MC D's and watching Jerry Springer, WWF, NFL,..... The big question is whether it will work. Personally, I think it would be more effective if we destroyed them to the level of Germany/Japan 1945. Anyone who has ever been to boot camp understands that you have to be broken down, before you get rebuilt. Applies to countries as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 4:07:06 PM EDT
[#29]
"Bush lied, people died"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 4:09:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Saudi Arabia supplied most of the terrorists, and financial support used to carry out 9/11.
Saddam Has invaded 3 other neighboring countries. Used posion gas on the Kurds Killed 250,000 people in "his" wars Killed 500,000 Iraqi's, due to "internal security matters" Thumbed his nose at UN resolutions to disarm for 12 years, which is far in excess of the 90 days he was allowed to comply. Was impossible to deal with in any sane and reasonable way Used the UN oil for food program to re-arm Iraq Was offering money to family members of homicide bombers in Israel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other countries may do SOME of the things Saddam did. He did more, and on a larger scale. He was a destabilizing influence in the area. He is responsible for too much killing, which occurrred year after year. He needed to go, he was a stain on the rest of humanity. Why is it when there is "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, the (D)'s want us to go there? Why when a few people get killed in political unrest in Haiti the (D)'s want us to go there? Why when there is massive political, and ethnic based killings in Iraq do the (D)'s not want us to go there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 5:11:43 PM EDT
[#31]
OLY-M4gery,
Very good post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:37:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Haven't seen any proof that WMD were found there. Roy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:44:35 PM EDT
[#33]
We may have won a few battles over there, but by no means have we won the war, in Afganistan or Iraq. Roy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:45:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Post from rdsr:
We didn't need any proof that Saddam had WMDs in order to continue the War in which a ceasefire had been declared in February, 1991. Saddam had to permit inspections for such weapons and failed to do so....for 12 years! That was a violation of the original ceasefire. End of story. End of Saddam. Eric The(PleasantlySimple,Isn'tIt?)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 6:55:19 PM EDT
[#35]
The burden of proof was on Saddam. He failed to comply with the UN Resolutions, and was therefore helped by us in "stepping down" from his position as tyrant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:14:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Bullshit. I (and quite a few intelligence experts) maintian that Saddam did have WMDs and his military had time to get them to Syria. Why would Saddam issue orders to field comanders to use weapons that did not exist? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:23:07 PM EDT
[#37]
www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
Read the article, read the book, then report back. This is the core of our strategic thinking. IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO WAR, AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:26:30 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:27:27 PM EDT
[#39]
I thought it was supposed to be for oil. They must have dropped that after gas prices kept going up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 7:37:14 PM EDT
[#40]
No WMD? Jesus H Christ, Saddam had 13 years (from after 1st Gulf War to Iraqi Freedom) to hide them. Given that much time you can hide anything. They're out there somewhere. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:01:46 PM EDT
[#41]
This seems pretty much right on target to me. Once we were there we flushed out and drew in militant muslim extremist (or at least a bunch of sadistic idiots that use that as their excuse) in droves. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:32:42 PM EDT
[#42]
I think QCMGR had it right, we new our relationship with Sadi Arabia was going in the pooper. Every country in the world has tried to have perminent bases in this part of the world. Think Global Strategic Positioning, we are the kings of the hill on this planet and we have to stay at this position. The romans were the top dog at one point, but they didn't do what it took to stay on top and now were are they. Simply put, gone!
I like being on the winning side, and if you are one of those that feel guilty or ashamed to be number one, then go to a third world country and cry your privlaged tears there. We need to have bases and equipment there so we can rapidly use them against china to protect oil interst to the south of Tiawan and Tiawan itself. Seeing how we are moving out of Europe and SK. The other reasons look and sound good, but when it comes to brass tacks the US does what it needs to in order to stay NUMERO UNO. Here's my blog for those that think America is Evil. http://g45.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:18:51 PM EDT
[#43]
For the umpteenth time: Map. 10-20 year forward thinking. Class dismissed.
CW |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:43:42 PM EDT
[#44]
this is a war we can never win unless we kill them all. the same same people the cheer us on and take our aid are the ones shooting at us when we turn around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:45:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Oh no you di'int! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 7:02:11 PM EDT
[#46]
I heard a song ounce about from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli(islam)?
We have been at war with them for many years! We should just send large troop carriers over there arm them and bring them here so that the Cali warriors have at them first(or from the other coast)just don't think they would make it through the New yorkers or eastern coast militia! Then we could see if we ran out of good old God fearing men and ammo before they ran out of fighting muslams!! God what a bueatiful dream!!!!! Bob
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
