was going to Iraq a good idea?

[Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?]

Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?

yes

 6 (54.5%)

no

 5 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Lol, had the U.S. found WMDs, the humanitarianism argument would never been needed or used.  No WMDs were found by American or UN investigators. I don't think they even had chemical weapons anymore.

This grows more and more interesting as a topic of discussion...and it will never materialize as plumb and square...there are still those who don't believe that mass graves were dug for people in Germany during ww2...and some still think we should have left hitler and the nazis alone...are you aware of this?  We entered the war unaware of the genocide expedited by the nazis.(oh man, aye hope this isn't another 'scale' thing for you.

Today, most people aye speak with think we did the right thing by joining ww2 and those former isolationists have faded. Yes, we killed people to save people....contradiction? Paradox? 

Maybe aye am an evil cynic...but when aye understand that a regime or political group or a despot family or dictator has dug mass graves or is digging mass graves...aye pray ( and we indigos use our channels) that they meet justice or are thrown into their own grave....but if the us has no interest in the area where this debauchery takes place aye am sure some would say," so what".  But with us interests there in mesopoetamia why not act? Act for selfish reasons...after all that is what the American people needed to hear.  Hussein invaded Kuwait and we acted because of our interests.

Why didn't we continue to push on when Hussein invaded Kuwait? Fear of civil war there? Hussein and sons kept persia at bay? Bad politics for bush sr.?  All of the above?

Do you remember Hussein launching missiles at Israel? Aye can't resist bringing it up again....apples and oranges make me laugh since they are both fruit and folks love that cliche...but here is a good cliche..."history repeats itself"... Scud missiles actually could kill many people but we took care of that right? What would happen when husseins sons would rise to power?  Couldn't happen again, right? Impossible? Think again.

If Cheney had said we are going into Iraq to take out husseins sons aye would have been on board that vessel of thought...because "history repeats itself".   Most people don't dwell on the reason why it was necessary to publish pictures of dead uday and quesay.  Those two would be the next regime leaders and a full stop was necessary to quell fears....talk about pre-emptive and wrong...but one scenario, needless to show.
Hey, sometimes they comeback...that was the reason Hussein murdered battle age kurdish men in 1988...he was worried that one day the Kurds would kill him and become empowered to control their own land...one of the largest and deepest fossil fuel land deposits known on the planet.  Aye guess that would be a reason Hussein wanted them all dead, right?  Hussein was right...today they do control their own land...last month the Kurds interior minister met with Scotland's first minister. What?

Aye think some who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea don't want to see the good which came out of it...Kurdish success today would not be possible if bush jr. hadn't started asking Hussein to step down and with husseins refusal to exit... bush jr.  engaged the tyrant with military operations

Aye think some who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea are upset that they were duped by an idiot like bush jr. with the weapons of mass destruction theory...frankly aye didn't care that they found no wmds...that is not why aye thought we should be re-activating military operations. Btw Hussein ruled with fear...that was his strength...he wasn't giving up on that bluff with weapons inspectors or the Clinton administration.  It's not like Hussein was a threat to the region before.  Right?

Aye'm sure some who think going into Iraq again was a bad idea after finding out that he had no wmds and don't think hussein or his sons would one day acquire wmds to use on Israel or Persia...or use them as a threat and take over Kuwait, Bahrain, or qatar....aye mean...why would his sons do anything like that?

Aye think some who thought going to Iraq was a bad idea are upset that they were duped into thinking that Hussein was behind 9/11.

Basically those who think going back into Iraq was a bad idea are upset that they were duped or think that bush jr was trying to dupe them or/and thought Hussein was no future threat to the region.

Based on a history going back o the late 60's  there was enough brutality out of saddam hussein and his regime to see that he AND his sons had to be removed....he was but ONLY a threat to the region....He'd been appeased and beaten down but always got up....

Fortook, dictators like hitler, stalin, amin, qadaffi, and hussein were forces of mass destruction...it is up to the people left in the wake of their destructive annihilating agenda to rise from the ashes and become empowered....if the USA helped these people rise from the shadows of lumped mass graves to stand tall and overcome even in the smallest of ways then it was worth it to continue operations in Iraq...sorry to be cynical toward the naysayers but you guys will fade...just like the isolationists of ww2.


My friends who label themselves as progressives are mostly disappointed that w's 'surge' was successful...they don't want to hear that the Kurds are empowered because they can't say, "I told you so"...they are disappointed that w initiated re-deployment and draw down and not Obama...after almost 40 yrs in power and mass genocide and destruction they can't admit that Hussein was a WMD himself. They hypocritically rely on oil to travel and live comfortably but don't believe we should protect our supply interests more importantly the people who make that supply possible.

But here is the kicker...some are progressive socialists who think we should help the poor, give aid and comfort to the sick and dying, and advocate human rights but they don't want to hear about the genocide of the Kurds and the mass graves dug in mesopoetamia...aye've called them out on this one and tell them to close their eyes...they don't like it...but they are smart enough to know aye'm right. A dry wit helps.

Amazing, right? sometimes people are killed to save people.

Someone asked Cheney: 2/3rds of Americans say it's not worth fighting?
He says: "so?" because history is showing how that country is succeeding, particularly in the north.
Those who think it was not worth fighting are irrelevant now..so what? Deal done...as long as the Kurds continue to thrive those who believed in intervention will be relevant....

Isolationists from ww2 faded away....we're global now baby

[LincolnLover]

If you tell the cops you have crack cocaine in your house, and they raid it. Don't complain.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-10-10/news/9010100377_1_saudi-arabia-new-missile-iraqi-missile

Iraq Claims New Weapon Of Death Hussein Says Missile Can Hit Israel, U.s. Troops In The Gulf
October 10, 1990|By Baltimore SunAMMAN, JORDAN — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, leading an outcry of Arab rage over the Israeli killing of 19 Palestinians, declared Tuesday he had a new missile with a range that could hit both Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

The missile was called Al-Hijara, which means ''stones.'' It was clearly named after the young protesters in the anti-Israeli uprising, known as ''Children of the Stones.''

Lol, had the U.S. found WMDs, the humanitarianism argument would never been needed or used.  No WMDs were found by American or UN investigators. I don't think they even had chemical weapons anymore.

[fortook]

Uh. You know 1990 and 2003 aren't the same dates, right?  There were two U.S. invasions of Iraq, no one here contested the WMD (chem weapons) of 1990. If fact, its off topic. 

Desert Storm isn't what we are talking about here and I am now aware of the time I have wasted on this board.

[LincolnLover]

It was one example ( of billions) if you brag of having contraband and then don't let the inspectors inspect.............. well duh. You get raided.

[fortook]

And if you brag of having crack and have none?  And if you brag of having crack and are raided 15 years later and have none?  Don't let the tactical ramblings of some fool dictate your behavior, especially if that behavior means killing people.

People lie.  Shhhhh its a secret.

[LincolnLover]

The alternative then is not enforce any laws. That is worse.

If someone is dumb enough to openly refuse to cooperate with the law. It happens.

His actions up to the day of the event did it. He could have surrendered that day. He chose not to.

 
Do people lie? Sure. If they are dumb enough to do it to the cops, they get the results.

What would you have prefered, we remove him and NOT rebuild?

And if you brag of having crack and have none?  And if you brag of having crack and are raided 15 years later and have none?  Don't let the tactical ramblings of some fool dictate your behavior, especially if that behavior means killing people.

People lie.  Shhhhh its a secret.

[fortook]

Ok, tangent number 3. 

Saddam Husein was not an American citizen, subject to our laws.  The U.S. military are not global police and the U.S. president is not the global attorney general- as much as some people, amazingly, want him to be. The analogy is flawed (even though I rolled with it for awhile, its just absurd).   

If all that were true, Saddam was denied his public defender, the right prohibiting unlawful search and seizure, quartering of troops (that's a funny one I admit) and his meranda.

Shortly, the comparison of criminal activity to international s.hit we don't like, right or wrong, is a logical fallacy.  It does not matter if I or you agree with the end result, it is flawed thinking and well, just arrogant and rude. 

Yep, U.S. foreign policy under Bush was arrogant and rude, that was why the state department had to actually tell us to say we were Canadians when we were abroad- ridiculous. Who else don't you like?  Should we invade them all too?  Invade for poops and giggles? Who care about casualties?  Sovereign right of nations? Sharing the world with all these people? F. them all.  We'll just force them to capitulate or kill them. 

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

It may not be our job to police the earth...but protecting our interests and providing stability (if we can) is our job...So, as Americans who have "interests" in the Persian gulf..like it or not...and depend on the people who live there for a supply we need to be productive should not act to protect our interests? or come to aide the people who supply us?

The removal of Hussein and sons was done because of a history of brutality and aggression with military and humanitarian exploits fluidly expedited by the regime..(in a region which the us depends upon)...whenever Hussein was knocked down..he got up again..we see how well sanctions and polite diplomacy have worked with the n. Korean regime....the same thing went on with hussein and iraq...that is why aye started with explaining that military operations began with the invasion by Hussein of Kuwait...

Clinton tried appeasement....Clinton used military force to shut Hussein down as well...
Bush jr. tried appeasement...Bush jr. asked hussein to step down...he didn't...so operations continued....

And consequentially the Kurdish people who live in mesopoetamia are free to do business with the rest of the world...(our socio/economic interests)...
and are free from systematic genocide(our humanitarian interests)...

aye don't know how you can separate the people living there from the product we are interested in there.

Those who think revisiting Iraq was a bad idea seem to be able to separate the two...and and those who think returning to iraq was a bad idea ignore the fact that Hussein ALWAYS pushed to rebuild his military machine after he took a beating...

For some reason those who think continuing operations in Iraq can't make the leap that husseins sons would be doing the same thing.

Fortook...do you actually believe that Hussein and sons had not historically been a threat to the person gulf region?

And do you believe that his sons would not have continued to build back their power in the region?

best of all it seems that you think that Hussein and his regime were not a force of mass destruction.

This is why aye go back to bush when dealing with the naysayers...they are upset that they couldn't say "I told you so"...

They will acknowledge none of the good which has come out of removing a murdering tyrannical regime...

Face to face arguments are interesting because of shifting public opinions on the matter....today, bush bashers and a lot of smart people look heartless and stupid when they downplay Kurdish success.

Ok, tangent number 3. 

Saddam Husein was not an American citizen, subject to our laws.  The U.S. military are not global police and the U.S. president is not the global attorney general- as much as some people, amazingly, want him to be. The analogy is flawed (even though I rolled with it for awhile, its just absurd).   

If all that were true, Saddam was denied his public defender, the right prohibiting unlawful search and seizure, quartering of troops (that's a funny one I admit) and his meranda.

Shortly, the comparison of criminal activity to international s.hit we don't like, right or wrong, is a logical fallacy.  It does not matter if I or you agree with the end result, it is flawed thinking and well, just arrogant and rude. 

Yep, U.S. foreign policy under Bush was arrogant and rude, that was why the state department had to actually tell us to say we were Canadians when we were abroad- ridiculous. Who else don't you like?  Should we invade them all too?  Invade for poops and giggles? Who care about casualties?  Sovereign right of nations? Sharing the world with all these people? F. them all.  We'll just force them to capitulate or kill them.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Uh. You know 1990 and 2003 aren't the same dates, right?  There were two U.S. invasions of Iraq, no one here contested the WMD (chem weapons) of 1990. If fact, its off topic. 

Desert Storm isn't what we are talking about here and I am now aware of the time I have wasted on this board.

time is fluid not static...and since Hussein took his beating in 1990...the Clinton administration had to go to military operations...appeasement was applied...but Hussein and company remained...

So you can't ignore the fact that operations began after Hussein invaded Kuwait...were continued with Clinton...were continued with bush jr. And redeployment and drawdown was initiated under bush jr...

You have to ask yourself this: if they found wmds would you feel as though it wasn't a waste.





For many people...they find no good out of the war in iraq because they just didn't like bush jr. or the fact that he won a second term...

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

True that husseins boasts were ott...but after all the info on the regimes historical brutality...and continued threats and brutality some people still can't make the connection that he was a threat to the region, particularly cruel and destructive towards the Kurds in the oil rich north.

Like hitler and the nazis he would not go gently into that good night. Sanctions, appeasement would not work...in the modern age unfortunately military force was the answer.

Aye think the fact that some people were duped or feel they were duped by "w" hurts their feelings. 

If you tell the cops you have crack cocaine in your house, and they raid it. Don't complain.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-10-10/news/9010100377_1_saudi-arabia-new-missile-iraqi-missile

Iraq Claims New Weapon Of Death Hussein Says Missile Can Hit Israel, U.s. Troops In The Gulf
October 10, 1990|By Baltimore SunAMMAN, JORDAN — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, leading an outcry of Arab rage over the Israeli killing of 19 Palestinians, declared Tuesday he had a new missile with a range that could hit both Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

The missile was called Al-Hijara, which means ''stones.'' It was clearly named after the young protesters in the anti-Israeli uprising, known as ''Children of the Stones.''

Lol, had the U.S. found WMDs, the humanitarianism argument would never been needed or used.  No WMDs were found by American or UN investigators. I don't think they even had chemical weapons anymore.