Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did The USA Invade Iraq And Was It Worth It  
User currently offlineHighpeaklad From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 538 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

At the time it was supposed to be because Saddam had WMDs , but thinking back who was threatened by them? He had no missile system capable of flying more than a few hundred miles, so no threat to the US there , and as far as nerve agents and the like go they must be fairly easy to make from a chemicals point of view so surely the threat wasn't any greater than from many other countries.
He had no connections to Al Qaeda so there was no connection to the war on terror.
Considering the hatred that has been stirred up towards the US as a result of the invasion and the mind boggling cost involved would the US not have been better off spending the money on increased security at home and throughout the world?

I realise that this is all with the benefit of hindsight , but especially if you thought it was right to invade at the time, do you think its been worth it?

Chris


Don't try to keep up with the Joneses - bring them down to your level !
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

Well this is simple...Bush supporters are going to say yes because they got rid of Sadam...yadda ryada.....

The bush bashers are going to say no because there were no WMD's..yada yada...

There i hope this clears it up for you. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me...

GS  crazy   drool 



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20730 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

Quoting Highpeaklad (Thread starter):
who was threatened by them?

The threat, even expressed by former Pres. Clinton at the time, was not only what he had done with them against his own people (the Kurds, remember them?), but also what he could supply to rogue groups in the region.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21485 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Completely implausible, both factually and tactically from Saddam's point of view.

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

To simply answer youre questions:

#1 WMD

#2 No

Micke//SWE  Angry



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Here we go again . . . .


Do you REALLY think this horse needs to be beat yet AGAIN?!


Pardon me, I have to  vomit  before I can stand to get into this one more time.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17659 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Honestly. Why.

Quoting Highpeaklad (Thread starter):
Why Did The USA Invade Iraq

"Plastics"



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
Pardon me, I have to vomit before I can stand to get into this one more time.

Why even bother - the main players have all made their positions well known, all the arguments have been presented. This is one of the few times I'd say . ..

DO A SEARCH

I now return you to your dead equine pummeling



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Someone call a cop....they're kicking that horse again! Oh, too late...one already responded.

just for the Hell of it, because I hated being referred to a previous thread when I was a newbie here....


We invaded Iraq to prevent them from being able to use or develop WMDs that our intelligence, and others, said they either had ready or were able to make ready in a matter of hours or days. We did not trust the Iraqis, since they had been uncooperative with the inspectors (extremely so, and were acting very suspiciously) and we were faced with a choice to either take their word for it along with the UN members who looked very much like they wanted to get back to doing business with Saddam or physically prevent the Iraqis from being able to wield weapons that could hurt us.

We went the safe route which was to not trust them, and to physically prevent them from being a danger to us or anyone else.


Now.....was it worth it? I think so. We know for sure now that Husseins government doesn't have control over any WMDs, nor can they develop any. We also have been able to liberate an Arab nation from a despot and introduce democracy. There are definitely difficulties and challenges, but we're making progress in many areas (although it's hard for some to admit) in spite of the obvious problems which have recently been exacerbated by outside forces which don't want a democratic Iraq.

We've introduced the concept in the majority of the country that democracy is attainable, and they are working through it. We need to finish the job, because the opportunity to help them develop an alternative to the hopeless existence that feeds and develops terrorists and people willing to attack us is incredibly important.

We took action because we were not willing to put the security of our nation in the hands of people who actively wanted us destroyed, or in the hands of people whose first interests were not in our safety, and we saw the results of waiting for someone to attack us.

It's worth it because we've taken a bad actor off the map, and convinced several others to either change their ways or moderate their tone.


Iran is feeling it's oats because they both fear that the democracy building in their neighbor will undermine the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Council that controls that country, and they think that the same people that wanted to give Iraq time and money will help them now, and they are the next challenge for the world to meet....hopefully peacefully, but if they get close to being nuclear WMD capable I think several nations will hit them with an ultimatum backed by force.

[Edited 2006-03-07 00:49:11]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Start here . . . . a quick 5 minutes searching revealed these threads with the request for "Invade Iraq". Change the search parameters, and you'll get other replies . . .



RE: War On Iraq - An A.net Opinion Poll (by AvObserver Dec 21 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID1042132
RE: Interesting News From Iraq (by Seb146 Dec 9 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID1029297
What Has The Iraq War Achieved? (by Tbar220 Nov 25 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID1015480
RE: Iraq Had No WMD? (by B744F Nov 15 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID1002520
RE: "God" Told W To Invade Iraq (by Peterk Oct 9 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID963973

[Edited 2006-03-07 00:49:29]

User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

You have to look at the big picture. Historically, this country was stolen by military force from the people who owned it. Was it worth it? Nobody even asks that question. It doesn't make sense to ask. Now we're running out oil and we'll steal it if we need to by military force. Is it worth it? Check back in 300 years and see if anybody remembers, or cares.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Can anyone prove that we're there to steal oil? Or that we have?


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
The threat, even expressed by former Pres. Clinton at the time, was not only what he had done with them against his own people (the Kurds, remember them?),

He gassed his own people years ago-decades ago; he committed crimes against his own people when Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 have been president. So why, after all this time, is what he does to his own people a reason for the U.S., or anyone, to invade Iraq? That was a post-facto excuse, when the real reason was found out to be false.

The real, given reason was WMD, which, as we all now know (well, those of us who aren't blind apologists for this war and this president), they don't exist. That was the stated reason-not one of the reasons, but THE reason. It was false. Then came the post-facto excuses, which were never mentioned to the build up to war.

And has it been worth it? Besides the fact I think we have no choice but to stay, no, it has not. We have a nation on the verge of a possible civil war, while next door, we have a real threat brewing. It hasn't been worth the human nor financial cost. We went after a nation without WMD, while we ignored, for a long while, the nation next door with the real desire and capability to build them.


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3508 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

The U.S. invaded Iraq?!?


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 13):
The U.S. invaded Iraq?!?

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineNordair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Partially to restore some grace(?) to the family name after Papa Bush failed the first time to get rid of Saddam.

And then...yes, there is this......

http://www.contempl8.net/images/will-kill2.jpg


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Quoting Highpeaklad (Thread starter):
At the time it was supposed to be because Saddam had WMDs , but thinking back who was threatened by them? He had no missile system capable of flying more than a few hundred miles, so no threat to the US there , and as far as nerve agents and the like go they must be fairly easy to make from a chemicals point of view so surely the threat wasn't any greater than from many other countries.
He had no connections to Al Qaeda so there was no connection to the war on terror.
Considering the hatred that has been stirred up towards the US as a result of the invasion and the mind boggling cost involved would the US not have been better off spending the money on increased security at home and throughout the world?

I realise that this is all with the benefit of hindsight , but especially if you thought it was right to invade at the time, do you think its been worth it?

The United States did not invade on the basis of WMD's alone, that is what the media said, there were numerous reasons why, starting with Iraq violation UN Resolution 1441. In fact the reason that was given was we do not if Iraq had WMD's.

The US & the UK had been involved in Iraq since the 1991 with no chance of an exit plan, now, there is a chance.

The oil for food program was a disgrace and Iraq (Saddam) was finding ways to exploit the program to his advantage.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

Quoting Nordair (Reply 15):
Partially to restore some grace(?) to the family name after Papa Bush failed the first time to get rid of Saddam.

That's such horsecrap. There's no proof that happened, and to continuously repeat that mantra of the loony end of the left is to detract from any valid points you might have to make.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 16):
The United States did not invade on the basis of WMD's alone, that is what the media said, there were numerous reasons why, starting with Iraq violation UN Resolution 1441. In fact the reason that was given was we do not if Iraq had WMD's.

This is true, but since the left focuses solely on that, and the reality is that the threat of WMDs were the primary reason for acting, I focused my answer on that.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting Nordair (Reply 15):
Partially to restore some grace(?) to the family name after Papa Bush failed the first time to get rid of Saddam.

I've always disputed that ill-conceived notion. George H.W. gave his word, before invading Iraq, to the Arab nations in the coalition, that he would not use that war to occupy Iraq and overthrow Saddam. No one could have stopped us, but he held to his word. I gained a lot of respect for the man. He said the mission was to liberate Kuwait, and he stuck to his word. He's had to put up with a lot of grief from Monday-morning Quarterbacks ever since, but I think he did the right thing in keeping his promise.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 16):
The United States did not invade on the basis of WMD's alone, that is what the media said

Wrong. That is what Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rice, etc and so forth, said over and over and over...and over, before the war-that Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the U.S. If it wasn't THE reason, why wasn't anything else included in 1441? That's just a post-facto bit of disinformation to justify a conflict that lost its justification when it was discovered the real reason was false.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 16):
The oil for food program was a disgrace and Iraq (Saddam) was finding ways to exploit the program to his advantage.

Is that a new excuse?


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
This is true, but since the left focuses solely on that,

Lets be honest here - the 'left' focuses on WMDs because they were the stick with which we were prodded to war. Iraq's violation of UNR 1441 was given as the reason why a new resolution wasn't needed, and why the coalition was free to act.

You can point to all the other ancillary reasons or justifications you want, but the record clearly shows that Bush & Co used the imminent threat posed Saddam and his existing WMDs as the justification to invade NOW (taken in context of early 2003).

As for the second half of the question - since we're far from knowing the final outcome, I don't think that question can be answered yet. I hope that in the end, what arises in Iraq is indeed worth the deaths and monetary costs.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
He's had to put up with a lot of grief from Monday-morning Quarterbacks ever since, but I think he did the right thing in keeping his promise.

I do too. He was also forced to keep in mind the continued existence of the USSR, as well as the fact that there was no real option for buffering Iran from the Arab world beyond Iraq and the Arab coalition partners were nervous about that, too.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
Wrong. That is what Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rice, etc and so forth, said over and over and over...and over, before the war-that Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the U.S. If it wasn't THE reason, why wasn't anything else included in 1441? That's just a post-facto bit of disinformation to justify a conflict that lost its justification when it was discovered the real reason was false.

Go back and read the reasons issued, because it appears you focused...or tunneled on just that aspect.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 19):
You can point to all the other ancillary reasons or justifications you want, but the record clearly shows that Bush & Co used the imminent threat posed Saddam and his existing WMDs as the justification to invade NOW (taken in context of early 2003).

I believe I pointed that out later in my post.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12119 posts, RR: 49
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Nordair (Reply 15):
Partially to restore some grace(?) to the family name after Papa Bush failed the first time to get rid of Saddam.

And then...yes, there is this......

I have to agree with you here. I always thought that once Bush got elected he would find some way to finish what his Dad did not. With that said I also agree with Falcon84 has said. Myself I always felt that the first Bush only did half the job, though he did do the job he said he was going to.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 20):
Go back and read the reasons issued, because it appears you focused...or tunneled on just that aspect.

That's because, Ian, so did the administration. Time and time again, we were told of this imminent threat; this "fact" that Saddam could launch an attack 45 minutes after he gave the order; that they had tons of WMD, when in fact he had none.

I'm not focusing on it, I'm merely keeping history in proper perspective-it was the only reason given for the war.


User currently offlineStuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3188 times:



25 Post contains images Falcon84 : Nice picture, MAF?
26 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : ANC and DL021 are correct... this subject has been beaten to death. Let it rest. I'm not going to speak about why we went in, but this is why we are s
27 Cairo : When mistakes are painful, people prefer not to talk about it, especially when they are married to defending the mistake because of ideological loyal
28 ANCFlyer : Mistake my fat ass . . . . "When mistakes are painful, people prefer not to talk about it" and when the gawddamn horse is dead, it's frickin' dead -
29 Klaus : The horse wil be dead when and only when people stop justifying the invasion in a way which can only lead to one conclusion: They would do it again!
30 ANCFlyer : Klaus . . . I don't always agree with you, but your opinions are ones I respect . . . Even you must recognize a dead animal in the road. Like I said t
31 ME AVN FAN : Reasons for the USA to invade Iraq : > Iraqis drove French motor cars > Iraqi seaports and airports were NOT managed by Haliburton > the Iraqi armed f
32 Klaus : Sure. But I'm not one of those who claim it was alive and ready for its next outing!
33 Mt99 : Like the good people of Dubai who might end up running US ports? It has been said in here before: "We didnt do it for the oil, but for the oil compan
34 DL021 : OK...which oil companies are benefitting from this that would not have benefitted otherwise, and how are they connected to the current administration
35 Mt99 : Thats a loaded question. How are oil companies connected to current administration? That question has enough debate in itself to be its own thread.
36 ME AVN FAN : they are NOT to "end up" in running those ports, but simply running (managing) these ports alongside all the other ports they manage around the globe
37 Mt99 : I know.. i was just being sarcarstic with my comments. I think that they are completly capable of doing a great job.
38 ME AVN FAN : I realised the sarcasm, but felt irked in a way, and could NOT resist ......
39 Tu204 : IN MY OPINION I do not know why the U.S. invaded a sovereign country and none of us know the answer to that question - the only ones that do are the o
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The UK Keep Its Head In The Sand Pre-7/7? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 02:00:05 by Avek00
Was It Worth It posted Wed Oct 27 2004 07:59:17 by Qantas077
Stand Tall With Iraq And Support It? posted Wed Sep 22 2004 07:09:23 by Commander_Rabb
The War In Iraq And What You Dont See On Foxnews posted Fri Feb 27 2004 20:49:58 by Zak
Why Did The Red Cross Visit Saddam? posted Mon Feb 23 2004 19:43:55 by Lehpron
Why Did We Go To Iraq, For Real? posted Wed Nov 12 2003 19:19:55 by Jhooper
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? posted Mon Apr 14 2003 17:14:32 by USAFHummer
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? posted Fri Feb 21 2003 16:45:33 by Toner
What Did The USA Do To Greece? posted Sun Oct 27 2002 02:20:24 by EGGD
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? posted Sun Sep 15 2002 05:02:41 by N751PR