Iraq ~ Let's break down the pros and cons of going into Iraq

We are past that. It has no bearing on whether we should stay or not. The issue of whether we should have invaded became meaningless the second we DID invade. Right or wrong, the US created a situation in Iraq and now has a responsibility to ensure the Country has a functioning Government and military and police before we leave.

We should honor the people who had the judgement and wisdom to correctly predict what would happen if we invaded, and who didn't vote to give bush authority to attack. Don't you agree? These people should get freakin' medals - the political pressure to cave to bush and give him whatever he wanted, in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks was enormous:


-Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-Howard Dean February 2003: "I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time...Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."

-Barack Obama September 2002: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

-Ted Kennedy: "The Administration has NOT made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.”

-Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it." He went on to outline some possibilities that would prove eerily prescient: Shiites attacking Sunnis, forcing U.S. troops to protect them. "Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than expected," Skelton wrote. "This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists, their families ... and requires a dramatic increase in end-strength."

-Al Gore, September 2002: "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

-Representative John Spratt, October 2002: "The outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain."

-Representative Nancy Pelosi, October 2002: "When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited."

-Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: "I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives."

-Ron Paul (R-Texas): "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."
 
I thank them for their commitment to the truth and to their clear headed insight.
 
Can you explain how Saddam was threat to peace in the Middle East?? Right now the way I see it WE are the only threats to peace in the middle east. Since we have been there more people have died I bet than all of Saddam years combined. So how was he a threat to peace in the middle east. :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

I dispute that we are the only threat in the middle east. There are several countries that I think fall into this category.
 
If we didn't attack IRAQ and only attacked it's leader then why are we still there? My god people like you are so fucking stupid. Seriously, the idiocy here is just mindblowing. Are people really this stupid? I mean honestly. The more I read shit on this site the more and more I understand why Bush was elected. Because America is filled with complete fucking retards !!!


We didn't attack Iraq. We attacked it's leader. And of course you're correct taht it would have been in a snap for those under his boot to rise up against him. Wonder why they never tried it before. Oh yeah, cause last time they tried they go mustard bombed.

Our army didn't go around and bomb innocent people either. I'm not sure what evidence you have for that claim.
 
Your right ..the second we do something it becomes irrelevant as to why we did it...JESUS H CHRIST here is another fucking moron...this board is full of them... I'm getting the fuck out of here before they infect me too.


We are past that. It has no bearing on whether we should stay or not. The issue of whether we should have invaded became meaningless the second we DID invade. Right or wrong, the US created a situation in Iraq and now has a responsibility to ensure the Country has a functioning Government and military and police before we leave.
 
Your right ..the second we do something it becomes irrelevant as to why we did it...JESUS H CHRIST here is another fucking moron...this board is full of them... I'm getting the fuck out of here before they infect me too.

You are not really being fair. What he obviously meant that whatever our reasons for invading, that is not dispositive (or even very relevant) to what our best course of action is now that we are there. It might be relevant to some questions, but not (in his opinion) to this question.
 
Ok agreed. But you gotta admit Iraq was much better off before we got there and fucked it all up. IRAQ is going to be a battleground for years to come thanks to us..YEY !!!!!!!! We did them all such a favor...See how happy everyone is in IRAQ. It's like living in the land of chocolate over their now. I think I will go buy a house on lollipop lane and live in a gumdrop house in IRAQ.

I dispute that we are the only threat in the middle east. There are several countries that I think fall into this category.
 
No he said what he said... It came across loud and clear.

You are not really being fair. What he obviously meant that whatever our reasons for invading, that is not dispositive (or even very relevant) to what our best course of action is now that we are there. It might be relevant to some questions, but not (in his opinion) to this question.
 
You are not really being fair. What he obviously meant that whatever our reasons for invading, that is not dispositive (or even very relevant) to what our best course of action is now that we are there. It might be relevant to some questions, but not (in his opinion) to this question.

That's a hard one for most to do. They keep wanting to drive through the rear view window. We have to look forward and what do we do now that we are there.
 
It was a mistake in hindsight, yes. But again only in hindsight, something many people seem to conveniently forget. A majority of congress voted to invade because they felt Saddam was a real threat. Now many of those same congress people are attempting to do the same thing that members of this board are doing, by condemning an action they supported in the first place.


a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.

and I have always been opposed to it...and I have been right about every single one of MY predictions about what a shithole we would create and become mired in.
 
The President said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

I still think there has been a promise made. By the President.
 
We didn't attack Iraq. We attacked it's leader. And of course you're correct taht it would have been in a snap for those under his boot to rise up against him. Wonder why they never tried it before. Oh yeah, cause last time they tried they go mustard bombed.

Our army didn't go around and bomb innocent people either. I'm not sure what evidence you have for that claim.

Thats a pretty ridiculous statement. I guess when the police are trying to find one criminal fugitive it would be acceptable to bomb the whole area and claim we werent targeting the people who lived there?

Shock and awe and all the rest of the bombings werent about ONE MAN nor were all the bombings that we committted AFTER Saddam was in custody targeting one man..

The idea that we bomb entire areas and invade a whole nation to target ONE man truly stretches all logic, not it actually openly defies it.

Next, we have bombed, invaded and killed many innocent people. You have to work very hard to NOT know such a thing. Invasion of Panama is a prime example.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top