• 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?

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

Sorry to tire you. It's true, we're in debt to them up to our eyeballs. I'll revert to my earlier point, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is a weak excuse at best.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
Sorry to tire you. It's true, we're in debt to them up to our eyeballs. I'll revert to my earlier point, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is a weak excuse at best.


I was merely bringing up that we can't do anything about Saudi as long as they have the world and us by the balls.
 
GySgt said:
I was merely bringing up that we can't do anything about Saudi as long as they have the world and us by the balls.

John Kerry thought he could when he said was going to "get on the phone" to the Saudis and make them lower oil prices. What exact leverage he was going to use, didn't say, but it sounded suspiciously like he was threatening a . . . war for oil.

Me, I have no problem with invading Saudi Arabia, either. But it's apples and oranges, that and Iraq. Dealing with one -- or not -- does not preclude dealing with the other -- or not.
 
GySgt said:
I was merely bringing up that we can't do anything about Saudi as long as they have the world and us by the balls.

And we would be agreed there. Are you making the case that we attacked Iraq instead because we just HAD to attack SOMEBODY?
 
Bleeding Heart said:
And we would be agreed there. Are you making the case that we attacked Iraq instead because we just HAD to attack SOMEBODY?


Yeah sure, why not? It was good training.

Some people just need killing and Saddam and his Regime was one of them.
 
Harshaw said:
John Kerry thought he could when he said was going to "get on the phone" to the Saudis and make them lower oil prices. What exact leverage he was going to use, didn't say, but it sounded suspiciously like he was threatening a . . . war for oil.

Me, I have no problem with invading Saudi Arabia, either. But it's apples and oranges, that and Iraq. Dealing with one -- or not -- does not preclude dealing with the other -- or not.

It certainly does, for two reasons. One, as we've pointed out, the Saudis have us by the balls, and two, we are overcommitted in Iraq.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
It certainly does, for two reasons. One, as we've pointed out, the Saudis have us by the balls, and two, we are overcommitted in Iraq.

If we wanted to walk in and take the Saudi oil, there's not a damn thing they could do about it. By the balls? Only because we're nice guys and play by the rules.

Overcommitted? Last I heard, we don't have enough there.
 
GySgt said:
Yeah sure, why not? It was good training.

Some people just need killing and Saddam and his Regime was one of them.

Thanks for your honesty. "Because we felt like it" seems to be the heart of the matter.
 
Here's some more honesty.

We have spent half a century backing the wrong players. Oil smeared our vision and we concentrated on the self-destructive Arab states and oil-rich Iran. We insist that Saudi Arabia, a police state that funds Islamic extremism around the world, is our friend. This is wrong and has been a mistake that has been glorified for decades. Our President (As much as I appreciate him) even plays host to its de facto king at his ranch. The oil rich Arabs and dictators of the Middle East have hijacked the Islamic religion over the decades and condemn all those Muslims that would defy their governments. And thanks to global interests in a stable Middle East, we are pledged to protect those bazaars of terror, the Gulf states, with our blood.

The Arab world, rich and poor, is nearly hopeless. With a few, strategically less than important exceptions, it has given itself over to the narcotic effects of hatred and blame. Arab civilization cannot compete on a single productive front in the 21st century. And there is nothing we can do about it. If the Arab world will not repair itself, no amount of indulgence will make a difference. We have wasted decades on governments and populations who need us as an enemy to justify their profound failures. The spark in Iraq could represent the last chance for the Middle East.

When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Do not be fooled or fall into their state of confusion and Politically Correct blindness. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. The military addresses today’s problems; tomorrow’s challenges are already fermenting. Plenty of hope remains for non-Arab, Muslim-majority states to reward their citizens with progress and tolerance. But, instead of wasting further efforts on the Middle East, where the military remains our optimal and almost only tool, we should work vigorously on the borders of the Islamic world, in those cultures where the fundamentalists have not yet been able to destroy all hope of a better future, and where Islam is still a developing faith, not merely a tomb for the living.

So far, we haven’t even gotten the numbers right. Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol. Three non-Arab countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, contain nearly half the world’s Muslims. Add those of Central Asia, Turkey, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and that struggling, vilified democracy, Iran, and the Arab states begin to look overvalued. If we want to roll back the inhumane variants of Islam and to promote constructive cooperation and the emergence of rule-of-law, market-driven states, then we should turn our energies to the lands of possibility, rather than wasting further efforts on Arab states utterly opposed to reform. If we really believe that Islam is a great world religion, we need to treat it as such and engage it where it is still developing--on its vibrant frontiers, not in its arthritic Arab homelands.
 
Harshaw said:
If we wanted to walk in and take the Saudi oil, there's not a damn thing they could do about it. By the balls? Only because we're nice guys and play by the rules.

They are rumored to have those precious oil fields rigged to blow if we make that move. And from what I understand, they could destroy our economy with one trip to the bank.

Overcommitted? Last I heard, we don't have enough there.

That's because there's a finite number of people to send. Stretching our manpower to the breaking point, that's what I mean by "overcommitted." Makes it really difficult to do anything else we might want to, militarily.
 
GySgt said:
Here's some more honesty.

We have spent half a century backing the wrong players. Oil smeared our vision and we concentrated on the self-destructive Arab states and oil-rich Iran. We insist that Saudi Arabia, a police state that funds Islamic extremism around the world, is our friend. This is wrong and has been a mistake that has been glorified for decades. Our President (As much as I appreciate him) even plays host to its de facto king at his ranch. The oil rich Arabs and dictators of the Middle East have hijacked the Islamic religion over the decades and condemn all those Muslims that would defy their governments. And thanks to global interests in a stable Middle East, we are pledged to protect those bazaars of terror, the Gulf states, with our blood.

The Arab world, rich and poor, is nearly hopeless. With a few, strategically less than important exceptions, it has given itself over to the narcotic effects of hatred and blame. Arab civilization cannot compete on a single productive front in the 21st century. And there is nothing we can do about it. If the Arab world will not repair itself, no amount of indulgence will make a difference. We have wasted decades on governments and populations who need us as an enemy to justify their profound failures. The spark in Iraq could represent the last chance for the Middle East.

When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Do not be fooled or fall into their state of confusion and Politically Correct blindness. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. The military addresses today’s problems; tomorrow’s challenges are already fermenting. Plenty of hope remains for non-Arab, Muslim-majority states to reward their citizens with progress and tolerance. But, instead of wasting further efforts on the Middle East, where the military remains our optimal and almost only tool, we should work vigorously on the borders of the Islamic world, in those cultures where the fundamentalists have not yet been able to destroy all hope of a better future, and where Islam is still a developing faith, not merely a tomb for the living.

So far, we haven’t even gotten the numbers right. Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol. Three non-Arab countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, contain nearly half the world’s Muslims. Add those of Central Asia, Turkey, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and that struggling, vilified democracy, Iran, and the Arab states begin to look overvalued. If we want to roll back the inhumane variants of Islam and to promote constructive cooperation and the emergence of rule-of-law, market-driven states, then we should turn our energies to the lands of possibility, rather than wasting further efforts on Arab states utterly opposed to reform. If we really believe that Islam is a great world religion, we need to treat it as such and engage it where it is still developing--on its vibrant frontiers, not in its arthritic Arab homelands.

So we're back to weening ourselves off our oil addiction to resolve this mess. Do you suppose our national resources might have been better put to this purpose than this "sure, why not?" invasion?
 
That's because there's a finite number of people to send. Stretching our manpower to the breaking point, that's what I mean by "overcommitted." Makes it really difficult to do anything else we might want to, militarily.

"Overcommitment" implies that we have strained out military resources too far.

Perhaps this is true.

Solution:
Wartime mobilization.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
So we're back to weening ourselves off our oil addiction to resolve this mess. Do you suppose our national resources might have been better put to this purpose than this "sure, why not?" invasion?


No.

1) Now or later, Saddam had to go. Whether he was a threat or was going to be a threat, we now don't have to worry about it.

2) His people are no longer subjected to his "legal" abuses. They now have an opportunity for a better life.

3) Iraq offers a great strategic location.

4) A built up and American trained Muslim Army on our side is beneficial.

As far as weening ourselves off of oil, if the war in Iraq never happened, the American people would care less about an alternate energy source.

I merely believe that we need to befriend Muslims in the fringe areas before the Arab's blasphemous version of Islam infects them and they fall into the same mentality. In the Middle East, the narcotic of choice is blame.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
John Kerry thought he could when he said was going to "get on the phone" to the Saudis and make them lower oil prices. What exact leverage he was going to use, didn't say, but it sounded suspiciously like he was threatening a . . . war for oil.

When the **** did he say this? Proof?
 
As far as weening ourselves off of oil, if the war in Iraq never happened, the American people would care less about an alternate energy source.


We've cared about it before...in the late 70s, there was a promising drive toward alternative energy, which ended when Reagan took office. More recently, a forward-thinking president could have used the 9/11 tragedy to rekindle that effort. Instead it was used to frighten and confuse a great many Americans about capabilities Saddam didn't have. And remember, if this had worked out the way they said it would (as very little has), we'd have oil flowing freely from a grateful nation, meaning the vital discussion over alternative energy would have been DELAYED for quite some time. It's true that this quagmire has helped to bring about this discussion, even amongst conservatives. We liberals would rather have skipped the unnecessary bloodshed to get there.
 
OIL
no other reason ,IRAQ has been groomed for this war for along time.
before the times of reagan , BUSH sr's close relations with Sadam
America teetering on an economic meltdown lashed out to cover an embarassing fact
America along with its major companies are broke
GM,FORD,Enron ETC...
before admiting their weakness they lash out ,much like any empire would when they are past their prime and sliding fast
open the gates, let the mexicans over run you ,and keep the economic debacle covered up.In time we can blame it all on the mexicans
All is well the Elite are well insulated from the mexicans
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why did we invade Iraq?

To kill terrorists in the war on terror which wether you agree or disagree with going to Iraq in the first place you have to concede that we are infact killing terrorists. You don't want to fight them here and honestly we had no other legal pretext to invade any other country in the mid-east and I don't think you give the Bush administration enough credit do you not think the DOD and the former Secretary of State Collin Powell didn't know that Al-Qaeda would declare a Jihad to try and fight us? I even knew that they would, that's what they do, that's what they've done for 1,000's of years, how else would we draw out an army with no nation? It's all going according to plan you people just can't see the big picture.


How about screw Saddam's soveriegnty? That's like saying that we should have respected Hitler's soveriegnty, which we did and look what happened.
 
Canuck said:
OIL
no other reason ,IRAQ has been groomed for this war for along time.
before the times of reagan , BUSH sr's close relations with Sadam
America teetering on an economic meltdown lashed out to cover an embarassing fact
America along with its major companies are broke
GM,FORD,Enron ETC...
before admiting their weakness they lash out ,much like any empire would when they are past their prime and sliding fast
open the gates, let the mexicans over run you ,and keep the economic debacle covered up.In time we can blame it all on the mexicans
All is well the Elite are well insulated from the mexicans


If it was about money and oil why wouldn't we have just lifted the sanctions against Saddam? Would that not have been much cheaper than the invasion not only in treasure, but something worth even more, American blood?
 
kal-el said:
When the **** did he say this? Proof?

What's it like living inside a mind so narrow that it only accepts things you want to see or hear?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-22-kerry-saudi_x.htm

"I believe the American people deserve a president who just isn't going to have a friendly talk, but who is going to fight to guarantee that we lower prices for Americans," Kerry said

"I'm here today to say . . . stand up today and jawbone OPEC to lower the price," Kerry said. "They could up that production tomorrow. We need to have them answer why they won't do that."
 
Harshaw said:
What's it like living inside a mind so narrow that it only accepts things you want to see or hear?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-22-kerry-saudi_x.htm

Now now now... thats not "proof" that Kerry said "He'd pick up the phone".

Of course, Kerry thinks Bush, as President, should 'pick up the phone', and so the necessary extension to that is that Kerry, as President, would also 'pickup the phone' -- but we need not mention that.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Now now now... thats not "proof" that Kerry said "He'd pick up the phone".

Fair enough, but he's obviously all for "jawboning."

So, again, one wonders what the "jawbone" must be a metaphor . . . for.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
As far as weening ourselves off of oil, if the war in Iraq never happened, the American people would care less about an alternate energy source.
The U.S. needs to start looking for stranded oil and oil sands. I believe Cheney was up in Canada looking at their oil sands but we should be looking at home too. We've gotten most of the easy to get oil but there is still plenty available that isn't easy to get.
 
scottyz said:
The U.S. needs to start looking for stranded oil and oil sands. I believe Cheney was up in Canada looking at their oil sands but we should be looking at home too. We've gotten most of the easy to get oil but there is still plenty available that isn't easy to get.

agreed there is supposedly more potential oil in Canadian oil sand than in the Saudi Reserves. We definately need to start looking for that stuff here too.
 
kal-el said:
Dude, that site says nothing about John Kerry calling rulers on the phone,making them lower oil prices. I don't know how you got that he was implying "war for oil?"

You obviously arent paying attention.
 
Back
Top Bottom