Invading Iraq was Strategically Unsound

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gunny, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    As far back as 1991, the military minds predicted that if Saddam was removed from power, the possible and most like consequences that result would be ancient tribal/sectarian violence renewed, terrorist organizations fomenting hate and discontent among the various religious sects, and an unstable Iraq would create a power vaccum for the various religious fundamentalist controlled states.

    Even though Saddam was a scumbag, mass-murderer and basic thug of the worst order, the fact that he was a sitting right in the center of the region with a force controlled by neither Wahabbi's, Sunni's or Shia kept the entire Middle East from unifying under fundamentalist controls.

    Since Saddam was willing to use ruthless force to enforce his dictatorship and policies, a manner of enforcement that goes against humanitarian Western idealism, the strategically sound choice would have been to leave him as he was.
     
  2. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    I Concur.


    But if we didnt remove Saddam and invade, how would the US get the oil.
     
  3. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Saddam was supporting terrorist activities, including well documented connections with Osama bin Laden. The UN proved their inability to contain Saddam’s quest for weapons of mass destruction, and it was only a matter of time before he obtained them. Saddam proved his willingness to attack American interests when he attacked Kuwait. The decision to neutralize Saddam was therefore sound and in the best interests of American foreign policy.
     
  4. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I agree 100%. Saddam controlled sunni-shiite violence...he kept a lid on Iranian hegemony, and he kept wahabbists out of his country. THe invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq has been the worst foreign policy blunder in my lifetime.
     
  5. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    George H.W. Bush was smart enough to acknowledge that... then again, he had been director of the CIA and a Vice President.. in stark contrast to the "Deciderer."
     
  6. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Same way we have always gotten it.....discover it, find a use for it, pay for the rights to it, create the equipment to drill for it, drill for it, have it then stolen and nationalized by lowlifes in the Middle East, then, after doing all of the thinking and work, pay high prices to buy it from asshole towelheads that didn't even know it existed before we told them about it. These tasteless dimwits will then use the trillions of dollars to guild their walls with gold and let their people starve.

    Any other questions chump?
     
  7. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109


    It was a rhetorical question.

    Meant to illuminate the already obvious reason for the invasion of Iraq.
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,170
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,200
    By dropping the trade sanctions and buying it. Much like we are buying it now.

    You might want to rethink the "war for oil" theory proposed by the left. It ignores most of the relevant details.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,170
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,200
    But it completely ignores the obvious reasons for the invasion. Terrorism.
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    What terrorist activities was Saddam supporting? The closest you can come is he financially compensated suicide bombers' families.

    Please provide supporting evidence of this "well documented" connection with OBL. Connections between the two were tenuous at best.

    It is rather obvious common sense that it was not in Saddam's best interest to collaborate with people who were as much his ideological enemies as they are ours.

    Be more specific about WMDs. Saddam ALREADY possessed and used weapons classified as WMDs in the past, while the UN and the US turned a blind eye.

    So what "quest" was he on, and and specifically which WMD was he "questing" for, and how did the UN "prove their inability to contain hi when the UN never tried with anything more than words?

    History 101: Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait as an attack on US interests. That is revisionist history or historical ignorance.

    Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait under the pretext that the majority of the oil field Kuwait drew its oil from was under Iraqi soil, not Kuwait soil, and that Kuwait had been and was still considered a province of Iraq.

    The cold, hard truth is the Kuwaits came to us with tears in their eyes and gold in their hands and bought themselves a mercenary army.

    Destabilizing the Middle East is/was NOT in the best interest of US foreign policy. Removing the iron hand that kept sectarian violence to a minimum and replacing it with words was in fact, counterproductive to a stable Middle East.

    Opening a second warfront before concluding the first is NEVER in the best interest of ANY nation's foreign policy. See Hitler's Invasion of Russia as a perfect example.
     

Share This Page