• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Iraq Invasion

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a question for all you conservatives out there...Why did we invade Iraq?

Now before you answer, consider the following:

We didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we knew that, for whatever reason, Saddam had stopped his mass murders. If we wanted to go there to help Iraqis, we should have gone there during the 90's, when we knew Saddam was killing people. And besides, how can a war truly be for humanitarian reasons? Consider that, because of this war, 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.

We didn't go there to "spread freedom and democracy" to Iraq. If that's Bush's "reason" then it seems we could have spread democracy in some other country that wasn't hostile to the US. Also, take into account that we supported a brutal dictator in the old African nation of Zaire (now Congo) for over 30 years. So it seems that if the war was to spread democracy, then the question becomes "what makes Iraq so special" seeing as their are plenty of other countries that are ruled by dictators. (also our "allies", the Saudis, have a monarchy! so why dont we make our allies democratic before our enemies?)

This war definitely wasn't in defense of the USA or any of our allies. Strangely, all of Europe knew that Iraq had no WMD's and wasn't any sort of threat. But when we, the mighty USA, saw this third world nation struggling to survive with hostile nations surrounding it (notably Iran and, the true superpower of the middle east, Israel) we saw a superpower. We knew that Iraq had no capability of attacking the US, we also knew that Iraq was no threat to Europe or Israel.

Lastly, it was not because we saw some huge connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The only connections are minor ones (for example, Saddam said he supported the actions of terrorists on 9/11, just like many other leaders of countries hostile to the US). If you look hard enough at any Middle East Country, I'm willing to bet you can find some vague connection between them and Al Qaeda. And what about the one country (other than Afghanistan) that we KNEW had definite connections to Al Qaeda and was harboring terrorists? Our old buddies the Saudis! Just look at the 9/11 hijackers! A good majority are from Saudi Arabia! And yet we attack Iraq?

So, taking all this into account, would any supporters of this war please tell me the reason we went there?
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The answer really is truely simple.
Resolution 1441. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
We demanded FULL disclosure of all his weapon systems and in order to keep the UN from becoming irrelivant we (and 32 other countrys) stepped up to the plate after it passed unanimously.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ah, you refer to that mighty coalition. We went in there without the UN's consent, but who cares? We had the backing of powerful El Salvador and Poland. The United States is (and always was) 90% of this coalition...The only way we could tell if he had weapons was to go to war with Iraq? Do we have any intelligence agency? This is no defense strategy. It is far to preemptive and offensive for my taste. But hey, I guess this preemptive strategy (attacking countries that havent done anything to provoke the US, but instead attacking them because they MIGHT SOMEDAY attack us) is all the rave to you neo-cons. And even if Saddam did have weapons (and let me point out with pleasure that we found none, and the search for any weapons is over) there is no evidence he would have actually used them. Who would he attack? Israel? This would just be a repeat of the six day's war. Oh but I'm sure he'd just attack Kuwait again. I highly doubt Saddam is that stupid. He was there 13 years ago and saw his army get annihilated by the US of A. As I said earlier, he was boxed in.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
vauge said:
The answer really is truely simple.
Resolution 1441. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
We demanded FULL disclosure of all his weapon systems and in order to keep the UN from becoming irrelivant we (and 32 other countrys) stepped up to the plate after it passed unanimously.
The only reason it passed in this country is because Bush hid the truth.
Congress never got to see the classified version of the NIE's report.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Call it what you wish, but Iraq was never a "war" on the ground. We went in their thinking that we'd see some Iraqis to fight, but their were none. We conquered Iraq in about two weeks time, without any real resistance. Bush declared victory, and THEN the war started. And now, we see 1400 American casualities.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
To highspeed, I think when we invade a country that we declare war on it. Totally agree with anomaly though. Bush is just wasting lives to make more money, which by the way, isn't helping or economy which is still in the shitter. Bush has only his personal reasons for going to war with a whole country: wants to get richer, wants to change the whole world into christianity through force, and to redirect the people's anger at Iraq instead of people who have killed innocents (al qaeda,).
 

USNavyman

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
The left always gives me a good laugh.

Try reading the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq that both sides endorsed before spouting off such ignorant bs. Lot more is listed there then just WMDs no matter how hard you lefties try to paint it differently.

Or how about the 9/11 Commission Report. I have a hard copy of it that I've read on my off-time, so it isn't hard to obtain a copy if you're willing to shell out a few bucks.

But hey, you want to make us military types happy? Do not claim to speak for us, you don't, never have, never will. Many of us consider those on the left who make such claims to be fools and idiots. To head off a few who will make the predicted response, for every one military-type that you find that support your position, there's about 8 of us that sit on my side of the aisle.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
USNavyman said:
The left always gives me a good laugh.

Try reading the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq that both sides endorsed before spouting off such ignorant bs. Lot more is listed there then just WMDs no matter how hard you lefties try to paint it differently.

Or how about the 9/11 Commission Report. I have a hard copy of it that I've read on my off-time, so it isn't hard to obtain a copy if you're willing to shell out a few bucks.

But hey, you want to make us military types happy? Do not claim to speak for us, you don't, never have, never will. Many of us consider those on the left who make such claims to be fools and idiots. To head off a few who will make the predicted response, for every one military-type that you find that support your position, there's about 8 of us that sit on my side of the aisle.
"both sides endorsed"? Huh? Is this the Democrats? Because no Democrat sell-out speaks for me, and I'm sure many of you liberals feel this way. I hate to put-down a military man, but often after serving (and this makes me wonder, what war did you fight in, because I know that there are a ton of WW2 vets who are against the war in Iraq, which leads me to believe you've served recently...but I could be wrong) a vet will show extreme 'patriotism' towards his country and/or gov't. You want to feel as if you fought for something, for something worth fighting for, not for an imperialist nation. But do get back to me and tell me what war you fought in (or if you didn't fight in a war, how old are you?). Also, I don't care who endorsed what, the Democrats are weak, so I'd expect them to try to act strong on 'national defense' by supporting a war against Saddam (now this is not to those few Dems who actually voted against the war, I've nothing but respect for them). The point is the war wasn't neccesary.
 
Last edited:

USNavyman

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
"both sides endorsed"? Huh? Is this the Democrats? Because no Democrat sell-out speaks for me, and I'm sure many of you liberals feel this way. I hate to put-down a military man, but often after serving (and this makes me wonder, what war did you fight in, because I know that there are a ton of WW2 vets who are against the war in Iraq, which leads me to believe you've served recently...but I could be wrong) a vet will show extreme 'patriotism' towards his country and/or gov't. You want to feel as if you fought for something, for something worth fighting for, not for an imperialist nation. But do get back to me and tell me what war you fought in (or if you didn't fight in a war, how old are you?). Also, I don't care who endorsed what, the Democrats are weak, so I'd expect them to try to act strong on 'national defense' by supporting a war against Saddam (now this is not to those few Dems who actually voted against the war, I've nothing but respect for them). The point is the war wasn't neccesary.
I am 26 and am active-duty for a number of years to come. May go the whole twenty-yard stretch as I am eyeing OCS in the near future.

As for neccessary, that is a matter of opinion. There are just as many arguments as to why the war was neccessary as there are why it wasn't. The Heartland strategy as put forth by Mackinder is one such argument that I believe holds quite abit of water in regards to Iraq.

Regarding WW2 vets, both of my grandfathers served in WW2 (my father's father in the Pacific and my mother's father in Europe) and both are supportive of the war in Iraq. My father's cousin Bud Shoemaker is Navyman like myself, went through NROTC at Duke University, he served in the Korean conflict and is supportive of the war. Danny Daniels, one of my father's best friends, is a Vietnam vet who was wounded, he is supportive of the Iraq war. I personally do not know of any that have served and who I serve with that oppose our efforts in Iraq.

The frustration of those of us in the military is beginning to build though, many of us view a number of those on the left as nothing more then enemy sympathizers, cheerleaders for a brutal enemy. There is a line between constructive protest, and out-right sympathizing with our enemies.
 
Last edited:

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
USNavyman said:
I am 26 and am active-duty for a number of years to come. May go the whole twenty-yard stretch as I am eyeing OCS in the near future.

As for neccessary, that is a matter of opinion. There are just as many arguments as to why the war was neccessary as there are why it wasn't. The Heartland strategy as put forth by Mackinder is one such argument that I believe holds quite abit of water in regards to Iraq.

Regarding WW2 vets, both of my grandfathers served in WW2 (my father's father in the Pacific and my mother's father in Europe) and both are supportive of the war in Iraq. My father's cousin Bud Shoemaker is Navyman like myself, went through NROTC at Duke University, he served in the Korean conflict and is supportive of the war. Danny Daniels, one of my father's best friends, is a Vietnam vet who was wounded, he is supportive of the Iraq war. I personally do not know of any that have served and who I serve with that oppose our efforts in Iraq.

The frustration of those of us in the military is beginning to build though, many of us view a number of those on the left as nothing more then enemy sympathizers, cheerleaders for a brutal enemy. There is a line between constructive protest, and out-right sympathizing with our enemies.
Your being 26 is quite important. As I said earlier, anyone in the military wants to feel they are fighting for something important. Your feelings are understandable. As for WW2 and Vietnman vets, I'd figure that Vietnam vets are pretty much split 50/50. And I know that atleast where I live, WW2 vets lean to the left. Now, I may be just reading too far into your writing, but it seems that you are trying to say that a military man's opinion of a war is somehow more 'true' or more 'valid' than an average persons. This is quite untrue. The protesters' opinions are just as valid as yours, if not more so. Do not assume that military experience equals superior intellect as this is often not the case. I know some smart military ones, I also know some who were completely ignorant.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Think of a world, where everyone agreed with war all the time. Jesus, would there ever be peace? I wouldn't want to live , nor my future children and grand children, in a world like that.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Greek philosopher (maybe Plato, cant remember)
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
To USnavyMan...

My father made a career out of the Air Force, over 30 years...in fact when he first joined, there was no Air Force or Army...it was called the Army Air Corp.

I served 4 years in the regular Army in the field of Satellite Communications with a Top Secret Security Clearence...26 Yankee MOS.

My son is 23 and currently serving in the Navy on the USS Nimitz.

Both my son and myself love this country, but believe Bush lied about the reasons for war with Iraq.
Bush picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify this war....ignoring the International Atomic Energy Agency report, and our own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) which stated there are no WMD in Iraq!! ( Congress never got to see the classified version of the NIE's report or they never would've given Bush the authorization to take our nation to war)

I love my country, I've served my country and I'm a liberal, and I'm not the only one who serves in the military who feels this way. I live very close to the Military Airlift Command of the entire Air Force, and I've spoken to others who do not feel free to speak out as they have taken an oath to obey the Commander in Chief.

Your categorzation of all in the military as being supporters of this war is nothing but right wing spin.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hoot said:
Your categorzation of all in the military as being supporters of this war is nothing but right wing spin.
I was in the Navy for four years. HT2 when I left in 87'. In the past three years I've spent several weekends volunteering down at the Local National Guard base. Most of the time just driving out of town soldiers into town for liberty breaks. But sometimes setting up pick-nic's or farewell parties. And I agree with you're statement here. While there's a lot of service members who do support the President and this war, there's a bunch who do not.
 

Jaymo

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
:monkey :monkey :monkey
Hoot said:
To USnavyMan...

Your categorzation of all in the military as being supporters of this war is nothing but right wing spin.
I to served in the U. S. Army from 1968 thru 1971 as a volunteer. Not many people joined the service at that time. I believe that this whole Iraq situation was planned long before 911 and Bush was going in come hell or high water! You see it's much easier to fight a war when you youself don't have the balls to go. Vietnam was one such war. Mostly liberals went there, while Rich Libs and well to do CONServatives went to the national guard or received college deferrals. :monkey
 

gypsy0032

Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
Texas
anomaly said:
This is a question for all you conservatives out there...Why did we invade Iraq?

Now before you answer, consider the following:

We didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we knew that, for whatever reason, Saddam had stopped his mass murders. If we wanted to go there to help Iraqis, we should have gone there during the 90's, when we knew Saddam was killing people. And besides, how can a war truly be for humanitarian reasons? Consider that, because of this war, 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.
But it's okay for 200,000 to die from economic sanctions?
I love head-in-the-sand comments.
We now know that Saddam and several others were funneling funds from the Oil for Food program, which never would have been disclosed had we not gone in there. Food did not go to the people of his country, nor the funds to buy the food. Instead those resources went to propping Saddam's regime. Saddam quit the mass killings? What a blind statement. He may not have had people lined against a wall and shot, but his actions or inaction was certainly him pulling the trigger.
 
Last edited:

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
Let me first state this, The war on terrorism was in Afghanistan, it was never in Iraq. I am in high school and I hear all of my peers saying that the war in Iraq is justified. It pains me to know that the people of the future of the United States are so oblivious. 3 trillion in debt is what we are thanks to the war in Iraq. Now many Republicans argue that we helped these people and that we are "spreading freedom." This is the most idiotic line I have ever heard. The british did what we were doing now. They were taking hold of countries for one reason or another and taking control. But because of all of these expeditions they were highly in debt. The British were once the most powerful country in the world, and now look at them. If we continue on the path we are on, we will end up like the British.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IndependentTexan said:
Let me first state this, The war on terrorism was in Afghanistan, it was never in Iraq. I am in high school and I hear all of my peers saying that the war in Iraq is justified. It pains me to know that the people of 4he future of the United States are so oblivious. 3 trillion in debt is what we are thanks to the war in Iraq. Now many Republicans argue that we helped these people and that we are "spreading freedom." This is the most idiotic line I have ever heard. The british did what we were doing now. They were taking hold of countries for one reason or another and taking control. But because of all of these expeditions they were highly in debt. The British were once the most powerful country in the world, and now look at them. If we continue on the path we are on, we will end up like the British.
I agree with you, and let me tell you how happy I am to see a Texan leaning left!
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
anomaly said:
I agree with you, and let me tell you how happy I am to see a Texan leaning left!
Well there are some of us in Texas that arent crazy conservatives. :) I know someone is going to take offense to that but oh well. One thing that I noticed though was that everyone who voted for Bush couldn't argue the reason why they voted for them. A few things that I heard were, "spreading freedom" "He's a christian" and just stupid things. I couldn't believe that some thought Kerry wasn't christian, it's just crazy. I think I need to move to a battleground state so my vote actually counts, because Kerry winning Texas was like Nader winning the election in 2000.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
anomaly said:
This is a question for all you conservatives out there...Why did we invade Iraq?

?
from a previos poster:

"The answer really is truely simple.
Resolution 1441. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
We demanded FULL disclosure of all his weapon systems and in order to keep the UN from becoming irrelivant we (and 32 other countrys) stepped up to the plate after it passed unanimously.

pretty clear, really.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Strangelove said:
from a previos poster:

"The answer really is truely simple.
Resolution 1441. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
We demanded FULL disclosure of all his weapon systems and in order to keep the UN from becoming irrelivant we (and 32 other countrys) stepped up to the plate after it passed unanimously.

pretty clear, really.
And tell me, how did them disobeying the iron fist of the UN warrant the movement and use of 150,000 US troops (138,000, roughly, of whom are still there)? Iraq disobeyed a UN order, but so have we, on some occasions. Was the Iraqis doing this really a threat to any country? I'd say, if we really had wanted to help the Iraqi people, we should have pushed the UN to overrule the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that have killed hundreds of thousands of children. Instead of doing that, we have dropped thousands and thousands of bombs onto Iraq, killing some 17,000 civilians. Was it worth it? Couldn't we have waited until Saddam died, and a struggle ensued for control of that country, and then given the Iraqi people supplies and aid? This war was not neccesary, and a tiny, weak, third world country with no army and no nukes (two things we knew before the war) that disobeys a UN resolution does not warrant the use of the most powerful military the world has ever seen! It does not render this cause the right one, by any means. If one would only look at some facts, one will see that this was no effort to help the Iraqi people, rather it was to ensure the safety of the US dollar in the global market, of course it was also for oil, and it was for expansion of the American empire (an empire that some neo-cons have publically wished to see expand).
 
Last edited:

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
anomaly said:
And tell me, how did them disobeying the iron fist of the UN warrant the movement and use of 150,000 US troops (138,000, roughly, of whom are still there)? Iraq disobeyed a UN order, but so have we, on some occasions. Was the Iraqis doing this really a threat to any country? I'd say, if we really had wanted to help the Iraqi people, we should have pushed the UN to overrule the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that have killed hundreds of thousands of children. Instead of doing that, we have dropped thousands and thousands of bombs onto Iraq, killing some 17,000 civilians. Was it worth it? Couldn't we have waited until Saddam died, and a struggle ensued for control of that country, and then given the Iraqi people supplies and aid? This war was not neccesary, and a tiny, weak, third world country with no army and no nukes (two things we knew before the war) that disobeys a UN resolution does not warrant the use of the most powerful military the world has ever seen! It does not render this cause the right one, by any means. If one would only look at some facts, one will see that this was no effort to help the Iraqi people, rather it was to ensure the safety of the US dollar in the global market, of course it was also for oil, and it was for expansion of the American empire (an empire that some neo-cons have publically wished to see expand).
You're just a hoot. :)

..you pose a question, then answer it in the same post. Hell, I guess there's no opinion but yours.

so, I have something for you:
http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/nova/blog/2005/03/13/echo-chamber/
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Strangelove said:
You're just a hoot. :)

..you pose a question, then answer it in the same post. Hell, I guess there's no opinion but yours.

so, I have something for you:
http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/nova/blog/2005/03/13/echo-chamber/
I feel I should pose an answer to my questions, so my opinion is known. If you have your own opinion, I offer to you the chance to post it, and hope that it is supported by facts, unlike your previous post. But here, you simply deny what I wrote, well, because I wrote it. While I see your confidence and ego is huge, that does not impress me. I would like educated, spirited debate, with you presenting your case with some evidence. Perhaps that would be a bit more convincing than you wallowing in self pity with such statements as "I guess there's no opinion but yours.". Oh, but thanks for the compliment...
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
anomaly said:
I feel I should pose an answer to my questions, so my opinion is known. If you have your own opinion, I offer to you the chance to post it, and hope that it is supported by facts, unlike your previous post. But here, you simply deny what I wrote, well, because I wrote it. While I see your confidence and ego is huge, that does not impress me. I would like educated, spirited debate, with you presenting your case with some evidence. Perhaps that would be a bit more convincing than you wallowing in self pity with such statements as "I guess there's no opinion but yours.". Oh, but thanks for the compliment...
Anomaly, you ask for debate, yet so far I've seen nothing but rhetoric, assertion, opinion, and invective.

While you may have a modicum of linguistic skills, it's clear that true classical debate was not a subject that garnered your attention. I have 3 long, horrific semesters of poli-sci debate under my belt in a major university.It was painful!

When you pose a question then answer it, it no longer is a debate....it is distilled to monologue. The debater adopts the role of a news anchorman.The title of this site is not 'political onanism'.

If you would like to start over, we can. I'm not here to 'impress you'. My ego is like anyone else's here. We all love to hear ourselves talk. If you are attempting to don a veil of modesty or benevolence by accusing me of conceit, all I can say is "your slip is showing,honey" :p

I really would like to continue, but only if you refrain from common shouting and circular argument.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom