Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

[MSgt]

Allawi had stated that only 30% of the insurgents are foreigners. The other 70% is made up of Iraqis.

Funny..since military intelligence who gets most of it's intel from the locals are saying quite the opposite.

There are two different factions in Iraq fighting against us. The insurgents and the local former Baathist Party loyalist Sunni. They aren't getting along.

But, what would I know.

 

[jallman]

Funny..since military intelligence who gets most of it's intel from the locals are saying quite the oppisite.

There are two different factions in Iraq fighting against us. The insurgents and the local former Baathist Party loyalist Sunni. They aren't getting along.

But, what would I know.

Look, its like this...the war had to be taken to the middle east because thats where the terrorists flow from. Was Iraq the best choice to start with...I dunno, there are some others in the ME that I think could pose more of a problem. BUT...if we can get Iraq under control and get us a firm foothold, we might would have a good place to jump from to get to all the others. I am just concerned about the cost at this point, but it must be done. I said before and I will say again, the towers were nothing compared to what these barbarians would do if they got real bombs instead of kamikazying our own planes. They make no distinction between women children old men and soldiers. Thats why they're called terrorists, boys and girls.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Dude, Iraq didn't get away with anything. I think you mean al-Qeada.

WEll if you want to take it to a technical sense the people who hit the towers had authroization from officials in iraq and sponsorship from people in iraq. So in a technical sense iraq did cntribute to 9/11.

 

[scottyz]

Funny..since military intelligence who gets most of it's intel from the locals are saying quite the opposite.

There are two different factions in Iraq fighting against us. The insurgents and the local former Baathist Party loyalist Sunni. They aren't getting along.

But, what would I know.

Funny..since military intelligence said the Iraqis would welcome us, troops would be showered with flowers, the Republican Guard would beg to join us and the war would be short.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Funny..since military intelligence said the Iraqis would welcome us, troops would be showered with flowers, the Republican Guard would beg to join us and the war would be short.

When exactly did anyone even hint at this? No one ever promised that this would be easy and to the contrary Bush has stated many times that this war on terror may last decades.

 

[scottyz]

When exactly did anyone even hint at this? No one ever promised that this would be easy and to the contrary Bush has stated many times that this war on terror may last decades.

In the months preceding the war, President Bush was largely silent on the subject of the conflict's cost, duration and dangers, while key administration officials and advisers presented upbeat forecasts. Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would "step aside" and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase repeated by other top officials. Others in advisory roles in the administration predicted Iraqi soldiers would "throw in the towel" and Hussein would collapse like "a house of cards" -- phrases senior administration officials often echoed in private.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that." That same day on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Cheney has spoken that way for months.

In September 2002, he said that "you always plan for the worst," but he also said, "I don't think it would be that tough a fight; that is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail." In a speech in August, he cited a scholar's view that "the streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer

Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"

Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators." Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on 3/16/03.

"Like the people of France in the 1940s, the Iraqi people view us as their hoped for liberators."
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense

 

[kal-el]

WEll if you want to take it to a technical sense the people who hit the towers had authroization from officials in iraq and sponsorship from people in iraq. So in a technical sense iraq did cntribute to 9/11.

OK, well don't leave out all the other rogue countries in the ME. Anyway, do you have any factual evidence to back up this wild assertion? And don't give me any links from FOXnews, or Limbaugh.

 

[MSgt]

Funny..since military intelligence said the Iraqis would welcome us, troops would be showered with flowers, the Republican Guard would beg to join us and the war would be short.

That's pretty much how it happened...without the flowers. The Republican Guard either got killed or dissapeared into the population only to join the new Iraqi Army later. The war is over. We are occupying. Learn your military terminology.

 

[scottyz]

That's pretty much how it happened...without the flowers. The Republican Guard either got killed or dissapeared into the population only to join the new Iraqi Army later. The war is over. We are occupying. Learn your military terminology.

you're a riot as usual. :rofl

 

[MSgt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer

Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"

Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators." Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on 3/16/03.

"Like the people of France in the 1940s, the Iraqi people view us as their hoped for liberators."
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense

Dude, did you just tune the war out until the insurgency and the fraction of Sunni started causing trouble? This is exactly what happened. It was a great feeling.

As for the Sunni, Shi'ites and the Kurds working together...that's left to be seen. The Shi'ites and the Kurds are doing great. It's the Sunni that is split up into cooperastors or dissenters. Should we expect more? Do we get any better cooperation between our own political parties?

 

[MSgt]

you're a riot as usual. :rofl

Are you obtuse on purpose or are you genuinly ignorant of facts? I'm guessing your a College kid following a fad.

 

[jallman]

Are you obtuse on purpose or are you genuinly ignorant of facts? I'm guessing your a College kid following a fad.

oh damn, lets not be too harsh.... LOL

 

[scottyz]

Are you obtuse on purpose or are you genuinly ignorant of facts? I'm guessing your a College kid following a fad.

I'm guessing your a military kid following a fad.

 

[MSgt]

I'm guessing your a military kid following a fad.

That's what I thought.

I was a military brat. My father was a Marine and he retired after thirty years in 2001. Unfortunately, the reality I live is real. Your TV and story frenzied media doesn't do it justice.

 

[icantoofly]

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate al Qaeda in their midst.

 

[Bleeding Heart]

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate al Qaeda in their midst.

Or, as George Bush put it, "we've had no evidence that Saddam was involved with September the 11th."

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate al Qaeda in their midst.

Now thats interesting. Especially since the 9/11 Comission report found that Osama Bin Laden was funding a terrorist group in northern Iraq that had allied with the Kurds and was anti-Saddam. If you don't believe me then read page 61 of the report..it's all there. Saudi Arabia is and was the second largest BOR for Al Qaeda not Iraq. Dick Cheney even said as much in a Meet The Press Interview.."...Al-Qaeda did have a foothold inside Saudi Arabia—a number of the members of the organization are from there—that there have been private individuals in Saudi Arabia who provided significant financial support and assistant, that there are facilitators and operators working inside Saudi Arabia to support the al-Qaeda network...."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244

 

[kal-el]

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq's government tolerated al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate al Qaeda in their midst.

Where the **** did you come up with the assertion that Iraq was in any way involved with al_Qeada? It's amazing what these Rush Limbaugh listeners will say, it's sounds like you're spitting out a stupid, ficticioius idea that Rush dreamed up.

 

[Harshaw]

Where the **** did you come up with the assertion that Iraq was in any way involved with al_Qeada? It's amazing what these Rush Limbaugh listeners will say, it's sounds like you're spitting out a stupid, ficticioius idea that Rush dreamed up.

The 9/11 Commission found as much.

But then, you've demonstrated amply that you're interested in nothing other than things which appear to support your preferred conclusions, so it's not surprising that you didn't know this.

 

[kal-el]

The 9/11 Commission found as much.

Yes, but it was in Northern Iraq, Not under Saddam's control.

But then, you've demonstrated amply that you're interested in nothing other than things which appear to support your preferred conclusions, so it's not surprising that you didn't know this.

I can say the exact same thing for you and your neo-con buddies.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, but it was in Northern Iraq, Not under Saddam's control.

Ummm, no. Obviously, you've never actually read it. They found ample evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. Not specifically 9/11, but ties nonetheless.

I can say the exact same thing for you and your neo-con buddies.

Yeah, well, at least I've done the reading and comprehended it. It's what happens when you take an academic and scientific approach to research, instead of just cherrypicking.

Your method?

 

[Bleeding Heart]

Ummm, no. Obviously, you've never actually read it. They found ample evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. Not specifically 9/11, but ties nonetheless.





Yeah, well, at least I've done the reading and comprehended it. It's what happens when you take an academic and scientific approach to research, instead of just cherrypicking.

Your method?

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says.

This was available at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Amazing what a Google search can do.

 

[Harshaw]

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says.

This was available at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Amazing what a Google search can do.

OK, first of all, that story predates the 9/11 Commission report . . .

And second, young Mr. el had made the blanket statement that there was NO evidence showing ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. I pointed out some. My point went no further than that.

 

[Bleeding Heart]

OK, first of all, that story predates the 9/11 Commission report . . .

And second, young Mr. el had made the blanket statement that there was NO evidence showing ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. I pointed out some. My point went no further than that.

Fair enough. Maybe we should just agree that whatever connection there may have been, it wasn't worth sending people to fight over. (You'd have to admit, Saudi Arabia's connection was much stronger.) Then we can move on to the other half-truths used to justify this fiasco.

 

[MSgt]

Fair enough. Maybe we should just agree that whatever connection there may have been, it wasn't worth sending people to fight over. (You'd have to admit, Saudi Arabia's connection was much stronger.) Then we can move on to the other half-truths used to justify this fiasco.

I get so tired of this bit. We can't do anything about Saudi Arabia.