Iraq was it worth it?

[bubb2]

Radical factions of Islam have called for Jihad ageist America. They have brought that fight to our shores. The question is do you wish to fight them here or over there. It is not a question of it it was worth it. It was never our choice to fight this war. It is a choice do you wish to defend yourself from future attacks.The only choice we had is what battlefield we wanted to fight on. People do forget we have captured high level Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[Dirtboy]

Originally Posted by bubb2

Radical factions of Islam have called for Jihad ageist America. They have brought that fight to our shores. The question is do you wish to fight them here or over there. It is not a question of it it was worth it. It was never our choice to fight this war. It is a choice do you wish to defend yourself from future attacks.The only choice we had is what battlefield we wanted to fight on. People do forget we have captured high level Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Oh, you must be refering to Afganastan ...... I thought we were talking about Iraq.

I believe we invaded Iraq on the (what turned out to be a mistake) belief they had WMD's and were gonna use 'em. At least that's what the Shrub told us and the rest of the world. There was little to no Al Quada present in Iraq 'cause they didn't trust Sadam either.

As ruthless and nasty as he was, one thing Sadam did was keep the lid on a very volitale mixture of factions .......... we haven't done that. What we did was remove the lid and wait for the crowds of people cheering us, their liberators. Something else Dick Cheney was wrong about.

DB

[bubb2]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

Oh, you must be refering to Afghanistan ...... I thought we were talking about Iraq.

DB

I meant Iraq when I said Iraq. Yes, we Invaded Afghanistan also. Would you rather fight this on the streets of New York. There is no doubt in minds of many that Hussein was a major funder of the terrorists. Yes I know that many people will say show me the canceled checks. Lots of money is moved with paper trails. If fact a New York court seized Iraq assets because of this.

[CrazyRu]

Wasn't it all about taking control of depleting oil resources?
Modern world will collapse without grease, see what happened just two years ago...

So sure, it was worth it...

[knothead]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

Oh, you must be refering to Afganastan ...... I thought we were talking about Iraq.

I believe we invaded Iraq on the (what turned out to be a mistake) belief they had WMD's and were gonna use 'em. At least that's what the Shrub told us and the rest of the world. There was little to no Al Quada present in Iraq 'cause they didn't trust Sadam either.

As ruthless and nasty as he was, one thing Sadam did was keep the lid on a very volitale mixture of factions .......... we haven't done that. What we did was remove the lid and wait for the crowds of people cheering us, their liberators. Something else Dick Cheney was wrong about.

DB

It can be argued that it is always right to stand up to evil.
Was it right to defeat Hitler? Napoleon? What costs were involved there?

Saddam Hussein was in fact a supporter of terrorism as well as being a heinous and ruthless dictator. He was in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Did Saddam Hussein's violation of United Nation resolutions justify the invasion of Iraq? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Saddam pays kin of Palestinian martyrs Twenty-one families are given $225,000 at a banquet in Gaza City - Oakland Tribune | Encyclopedia.com

Saddam Hussein killer file


The following is from a speech given by George Bush on 9/20/01.

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Get over it. The Iraq war was just as justifiable as any other so called righteous war that has ever been waged.

[sck5]

It isnt that there are cowards hiding among the civilians. It is that the different groups of civilians hated each others guts and were only waiting for the opportunity to have at it and start a civil war. Our removal of Saddam was like waving a starting flag. Sure, they shot our guys too but they were also doing a lot of shooting at each other. And still are.

[goboatingnow]

any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

This is the trouble with over simplistic views of "terrorism". In many countries one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighther . The subject is complex.

what is obvious is while the military campaign was a foregone conclusion, the planning for the aftermath was a diasaster.

There is no doubt in my mind is that teh US or the world isnt safer, nor has anything been achieved by the invasion. It goes to proove that militarys cant effect change. I suspect that Iraq will be a more unstable place in the future and possibly a hot bed of muslin fundementalism, like Iran.

Aghanistan is even more of a c&*k up

This has nothing to do with the US military, which did and are doing a great job in both Iraq and Afganistan, its about the stupid political belief that you can bomb a country into submission, perhaps using total anhilination, but not with todays asymetric battles. Ultimately these issues have to be solved by talking and compromise and bits of grubby diplomacy.

The Iraq war was just as justifiable as any other so called righteous war that has ever been waged.

Every war, ever that has been fought has been justified by those starting or waging it. Its a given. However it isnt neccesarily the thruth

Was it right to defeat Hitler? Napoleon?

wha.. napoleon was one of the good guys, ( to a hell of a lot of people, ask the ordinary frenchman)

If we use the

heinous and ruthless dictator

as a reason, then why not now or in the past invade, Saudia Arabia ( a hot bed of fundementalism). Boliva, Brasil, Philipines,chile,etc etc. oh I know why they were are our friends.!!!...please

[Dirtboy]

There's a right way and a wrong way to wage war.

The right way is to gather other civilizied nations into your camp, develop a comprehensive stragety for first trying everything under the sun to effect change without firing a shot. Second, when it does come to shooting you still need the full support of the other civilized nations. Third, after the shooting there needs to be a plan to rebuild and restore basic services to the population and maintain order.

I call what we did the "knight in shining armor" stragety: F&*K the rest of the world ..... WE'RE gonna get-er-done! In other words, our intentions were good, our methods were just plain wrong.

Afganastan is a whole world different. In afganastan we are taking the fight directly to an enemy who attacked us first! That's not invading, that's fighting back.

What we did to Iraq borders on criminal. Can't be justified by showing what a criminal Sadam was, that doesn't justify what we did.

What we are doing in Afganastan is justified.

Don't get me wrong. I'm from a military family. I'm not blaming the military one bit. I think most of the blame falls on that combo of Shurb & Dick.

DB

[knothead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

wha.. napoleon was one of the good guys, ( to a hell of a lot of people, ask the ordinary frenchman)

Osama is one of the good guys too. (to a hell of a lot of terrorists)

The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler « Aftermath News

[knothead]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

There's a right way and a wrong way to wage war.

The right way is to gather other civilizied nations into your camp, develop a comprehensive stragety for first trying everything under the sun to effect change without firing a shot. Second, when it does come to shooting you still need the full support of the other civilized nations. Third, after the shooting there needs to be a plan to rebuild and restore basic services to the population and maintain order.


DB

Part of President Bush's address declaring war on Iraq.

"More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense. "