• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

I

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why did we invade Iraq?

Want a REAL Threat? North Korea!
Want to fight terror? Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordon (among others)!
Want a strategic location? Afghanistan's good... oops, no oil!
Want to liberate somebody? Cuba!

No, I am NOT suggesting war with these nations.
I'm suggesting that Iraq was the least of our worries, until Bush became President!

Saddam Hussein had Iraq in their own little world. He was a wicked evil dictator, no doubt. But a threat to NOBODY but Iraqis. His Air Force was buried in the desert. His Armor units depleted during Desert Storm, his chemical weapons (evidently) destroyed during the 90's. His "Elite" Republican Guard... well, we know about their will, no backbone.

Who we're fighting now are the Iraqi people and people (insurgents) from other countries that came there AFTER we invaded. Those are the SAME people that would have just as well gone into Afghanistan to fight us. In fact, after getting his camp destroyed in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's militant group packed up and went to Iraq, where they commenced to beheading American citizens and Iraqis alike!

This is also the time that al-Zarqawi pledged alliance with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. al-Zarqawi and bin Laden hadn't been friends before this time. I guess maybe GW is more of a "uniter" (Bushism... the proper word being 'unifier') than I give him credit for being, huh? He's damn sure united the Islam extremist's, hasn't he?
 

……………………………………………………………………
FACTS

The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.
These two sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.
These three sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
……………………………………………………………………

05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA.
The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.

1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan.

Did the USA wait to long?

2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq.

Should the USA have waited longer?
…………………………………………………………………………..
The deadly consequences to us all of failure to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who mass murder civilians and those who are their accomplices) are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!
 
Last edited:

The worst dishonesty, is intellectual dishonesty.

Iraq was a minor player in global terrorism. Those terrorist camps in Northern Iraq were in Kurdish controlled territory.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The worst dishonesty, is intellectual dishonesty.

Iraq was a minor player in global terrorism. Those terrorist camps in Northern Iraq were in Kurdish controlled territory.
Click to expand...

All that and all you had a problem with was the exact location of the terrorist camps? They were in Iraq, thats the long and short of it
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
...
Iraq was a minor player in global terrorism. Those terrorist camps in Northern Iraq were in Kurdish controlled territory.
Click to expand...

Kurdish control was an intention, but it certainly wasn't an actual accomplishent.

Under IRAQ in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In Chapter 2.4 BUILDING AN ORGANIZATION, DECLARING WAR ON THE UNITED STATES (1992-1996), page 61, note 54 , The Non-partisan, 9/11 Commission:
In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
Click to expand...

Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, 2/5/2003, on "sinister nexus"]

I was first inclined to dismiss this part as just another case of Powell being mislead by faulty intelligence information. However, while Saddam’s regime truthfully denied Powell’s claims about the regime possessing ready-to-use WMD or being an accomplice to 9/11, Saddam's regime ignored this "sinister nexus" part of Powell’s speech and never confirmed or denied it.

The TOMNOM (i.e.,The Oxy-Moron News Opinion Media) ignored this part as well. That eventually prompted me to commence my own research of sources excluding TOMNOM.
 
Here is an additional relevant source.

"American Soldier," Chapter 12, A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks:
 
It's all about globalization. All the WMD evidence was all bullshit. We used that as a means of justification and Bush took advantage of the fact that after 9/11 so many people were supporting him.
 
FinnMacCool said:
It's all about globalization. All the WMD evidence was all bullshit. We used that as a means of justification and Bush took advantage of the fact that after 9/11 so many people were supporting him.
Click to expand...

That's TOMNOM BUNK! It is and always has been primarily about the self-preservation of the American people.

Those allegations that Saddam possessed WMD and was complicit in 9/11 were redundant besides being untrue. The primary and sufficient justification for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq was to remove from those countries al Qaeda and the governments that would otherwise allow al Qaeda back in once the US military left.

Excepts from the non-partisan 9/11 Commission, Chapter 10, 9/20/2004 [boldface added]:
 
Wikipedia is your source for this???? :rofl :rofl
 
Hey cool. I just edited John Hancocks page.

Thats kinda messed up because I've used wikepedia on countless occasions to look up all kinda things but wow. Never realized you could edit the pages lol.
 
SOURCES:

1. Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"-1996;
and,
Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
[scroll down to find them both]

2. Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols; Translation By JUS; Jun 09, 2004
Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf; 19 Rabbi Al-Akhir 1425
http://www.mail-archive.com/tumpat@yahoogroups.com/msg00035.html

3. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

4. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

5. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, 2/5/2003,
"sinister nexus"
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

6. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

7. The Encyclopedia Britannica (fee for annual membership required)
Iraq
www.britannica.com

8. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Islamic Movement in Kurdistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan;
Ansar al-Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

9. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Terrorist Incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1996
 
Last edited:
Good question, why did we invade Iraq? I mean Saddam had no ties to al-Qeada, 9/11 wasn't his doing, nor was any Iraqi involved, he was no threat to us, or his neighbors, and of course, we didn't find any WMDs that we were so desperately searching for.

You pro-war nuts can try and justify this mistake all you want, but in the end, it will still be a mistake.

IMO,we should have sent those 160,000 troops into Afganistan to find Osama, instead of a measly 10,000. I'm sure we wouldn't have lost near as many lives and we would have fullfilled the public's prime objective- capturing Bin Laden.
 

FACTS
The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.
These two sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.
These three sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
……………………………………………………………………

FACTS
05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA.
The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.

1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan.
Did the USA wait to long?

2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq.
Should the USA have waited longer?
 
Last edited:
Like I said, you can use your suppossed "facts" to attempt to justify it. It won't change the fact that it was still wrong. And you wanna talk about global terrorism? Please, Bin Laden detested Saddam, and called him an infidel. Iraq had the least terror connections of any other Midlle Eastern nation.
 
Last edited:
scottyz said:
I can go to the page he posted right now and EDIT it to say whatever I want. Anybody can!
There is a little message for you after the references..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan
Click to expand...

Change these sentences excerpted from Wikipedia if you can so that when I excerpt them again,I will be able to see your changes.

FACTS
The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.

Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

These two sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.

At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.

These three sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
 
Last edited:

Your hypotheses absent examples and/or supporting evidence are duly noted and expected.
 
Let see... we lost nearly 2,000 American lives, more than 30,000 civilians died, we traded a contained dictator in for a choatic situation. So you tell me, was it worth it?
 
Haven't had any bombings in the US since
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Haven't had any bombings in the US since
Click to expand...

No, but I hate to admit it, but it's inevitable. look at London. That was not unprovoked at all. People seem to think so, but they are part of the coalition that has occupied Iraq with at least 130,000 troops strong. You can't get into a fight, and expect to leave without any scratches or scrapes.
 


Your right... I have no illusions that something isn't going to happen at some point in the future. Theres no way to stop it with our complete lack of security and inability to actualy question someone. Least not without ******* off the ACLU. But we have been without terrorist activity in this country since. 3000 people died in a matter of seconds. It's taken them years to tally a toll of 2000. In my opinion this is far to many Americans dead for a country like Iraq. But also I think without iraq we would have lost even more people since the last attacks.
 
I just edited this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan
 
(Director of 9-11 Commission) Philip Zelikow: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel,"

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," Newsmax.com

George W. Bush: My message to our troops is, "Thank you for what you're doing. We're standing with you strong. We'll give you all the equipment you need. And we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission."

A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel.

John Kerry: Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror.
Both from the 1st Presidential Debate 9-30-04


War on Terror = Milchamas Amelek.

Now go study your PNAC. ;-)
 
Calm2Chaos said:
I think without iraq we would have lost even more people since the last attacks.
Click to expand...

Yea, ok, I might buy that if I were drinking or something. Iraq has very little to do with terrorism. Practically every other country in the region has more terrorist connections. Lets see... well to do son of an oil tycoon invades and occupies an oil-rich nation. This situation would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it is so darn bloody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…