DCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 582 posts, RR: 3 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
I was having a discussion with a friend about the Iraq War (personally I opposed under the circumstances) and he says the war plan had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Fear of weapons of mass destruction was used as a device for congressional war consent.
He said the real reason for the war - was to draw al-Qaeda away from the mountainous hamlets where they could easily hide into the plains of Iraq - where the Army of the Republic could then anniliate them.
Interesting theory...
He also said that we shouldn't worry that some of our most trusted allies didn't join the war - he said after all "Would those allies have joined the USA in a war against Afghanistan in the summer of 2001?"
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1202 times:
While it wasn't the lone reason, drawing the terrorists into a battle with our military has always been our intention. Some Al-Qaeda cronies were already in Iraq before the war began (Ansar Al-Islam, the group led by al-Zarqawi) as well as other terrorists and their ilk. Also, during the invasion when the Marines stormed the terrorist training center at Salman Pak, they encountered hundreds of fighters from across the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. These guys were far more dangerous than any Iraqi unit and the Marines had a hard fight before being able to take the place. In the end the terrorists were shot to bits as they were not going to surrender.
Once the war started, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists from across the Middle East came into Iraq in order to fight the "infidels" Instead of us having to go all over the world in order to kill these vermin, they happily come to us. Our military is already in Iraq so why not have the terrorists come where we can kill them easily. Better that they go after our military, which is well armed and trained to fight back, than come to our shores and blow up innocent civilians.
Weapons of mass destruction, which BTW have been found but just not in enough quantity to satisfy people of a certain political persuasion, was never the main reason for removing Saddam. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East and this was the primary reason for giving him the boot. He provided safe haven to terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and had enough of a military to continue to threaten his neighbors. Besides, the three biggest WMD's in Iraq have been taken care of. Two are dead and one is in prison awaiting trial.
________________________________________________________________ He also said that we shouldn't worry that some of our most trusted allies didn't join the war - he said after all "Would those allies have joined the USA in a war against Afghanistan in the summer of 2001?"
He's right, just think about it for a second. If President Bush had said "We're going to invade Afghanistan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US" there would have been an outcry just like we heard over Iraq. It might not have been as loud since countries like France and Germany didn't have billions riding on the Taliban staying in power like they did with Saddam.
We learned on Sept. 11th that we cannot wait for the threat to bite up on the butt. Sometimes we must act before the threat becomes imminent as we did with Iraq.
QIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
Weapons of mass destruction, which BTW have been found but just not in enough quantity to satisfy people of a certain political persuasion, was never the main reason for removing Saddam.
The WMD's was the main reason. You remember that speech and big show Powell made in the security council? It's unbelivable that you deny it
He provided safe haven to terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and had enough of a military to continue to threaten his neighbors. Besides, the three biggest WMD's in Iraq have been taken care of. Two are dead and one is in prison awaiting trial.
And your dear ally Pakistan, what about them.. How many terrorist do they have in their country who kills us troops? And Musharaf ain't doing a shit about it. But lets just put the Bush glasses on and turn the blind eye away from that and withdraw Pakistans debt.
Once the war started, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists from across the Middle East came into Iraq in order to fight the "infidels" Instead of us having to go all over the world in order to kill these vermin, they happily come to us. Our military is already in Iraq so why not have the terrorists come where we can kill them easily. Better that they go after our military, which is well armed and trained to fight back, than come to our shores and blow up innocent civilians.
That is a easy way to do it. It's just a damn shame so many civilian Iraqis has to die because of this strategy. But hey, It's only Iraqis. Who cares as long it's not americans or other coalition forces.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1162 times:
Would those allies have joined the USA in a war against Afghanistan in the summer of 2001?"
Umm....Canada sent troops to Afghanistan. And we're still there. Australia, Britain, Germany and France among others have deployed troops and other resources to the fighting in Afghanistan making the program truly international.
He's right, just think about it for a second. If President Bush had said "We're going to invade Afghanistan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US" there would have been an outcry just like we heard over Iraq. It might not have been as loud since countries like France and Germany didn't have billions riding on the Taliban staying in power like they did with Saddam.
More false information based on what?
Once the war started, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists from across the Middle East came into Iraq in order to fight the "infidels" Instead of us having to go all over the world in order to kill these vermin, they happily come to us.
This theory is full of holes. Why jeopardize the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and subject them to the horrors of war to draw out the real enemy, Al Queda? If this was truly Bush's idea, he is a bigger idiot than I thought.
If you want the "vermin" to come to you, just stay the course. The Iraq war has manufactured more US enemies intent on harming Americans than ever before.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20860 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1156 times:
The weakening of the US troops in Afghanistan has prepared the ground for the obviously ongoing resurgence of the Taleban. The warlords´ power and their drug trade are in full bloom again.
At the same time, many (if not most) of the attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by iraqis fighting the occupation and preparing a civil war, not primarily foreign fighters.
So if that should have been a "strategy", it could only be called a miserable failure on all fronts. Sure, they´d be stupid enough to try something like that, but I still don´t believe it.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7798 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1145 times:
It so they failed completely as Klaus said previously.
There are currently more Taliban fighters in Afghanistan than before war on Iraq broke out.
Weapons of mass destruction, which BTW have been found but just not in enough quantity to satisfy people of a certain political persuasion,
Such as Rumsfeld or the POTUS who, after more than a year, did not announce yet that WMD have been found.
Though the fear for WMD wasn't the only reason, it was indeed the main reason for battling against Iraq.
Another reason was that not Saddam but rather the US forces in Saudia Arabia were a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. Most if not all of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. At the same time Bush could not pull out troops without removing Saddam from power first. At least he and his attack on Kuwait was the reason for the deployment.
Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Bush pulled out most of the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, though not coincidentally, it didn't really help to calm radical minds, since there are now more "infidels" stationed in the Middle East than ever before.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1132 times:
If the goal was to draw Al Qaeda from Afghanistan to Iraq, it failed miserably, because Al Qaeda is still causing havoc in Afghanistan, and we opened a floodgate for terrorism in Iraq with our invasion.
Sounds like your friend is doing a Bush, and making up further reasons for a war that most people now are against, and who's original reason turned out to be false.
And just think what another 4 years of this might entail?
Spinzels From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1132 times:
Weapons of mass destruction, which BTW have been found but just not in enough quantity to satisfy people of a certain political persuasion,
We've found WMDs, Source?
He provided safe haven to terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and had enough of a military to continue to threaten his neighbors.
Pakistan fits those criteria as well. A fervent supporter of international terrorist organizations, and not just a potential threat to their neighbors, but an actual aggressor as well. Moreover, no other country has done more to proliferate nuclear technology than Pakistan. And yet rather than invade, we give them direct cash subsidies, and strong arm the IMF on their behalf.
He's right, just think about it for a second. If President Bush had said "We're going to invade Afghanistan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US" there would have been an outcry just like we heard over Iraq.
I'm glad that you brought it up, Afghanistan is a good example of the ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy. Afghanistan wasn't anywhere on the Bush administrations' priority list, despite numerous warnings about the danger of Qaeda from people like George Tenet and CIA staff, Richard Clarke etc. Instead the Bush administration was too fixated on missile defense and abrogating international treaties: e.g., the ABM treaty, Kyoto, the International War Crimes Tribunal Treaty etc.
Today, of course Afghanistan has been again forgotten by the Bush Administration and the country has largely slipped back into the archaic mess it was before we invaded.
Once the war started, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists from across the Middle East came into Iraq in order to fight the "infidels" Instead of us having to go all over the world in order to kill these vermin, they happily come to us.
So you are happy with all that? You are cold dude, you are cold!
He's right, just think about it for a second. If President Bush had said "We're going to invade Afghanistan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US" there would have been an outcry just like we heard over Iraq. It might not have been as loud since countries like France and Germany didn't have billions riding on the Taliban staying in power like they did with Saddam.
Why are you so fixated on commercial ties between France, Germany and Iraq when those same ties existed between the U.S. and Iraq, even between Hallibutron and Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/halliburtonprimer.html Cheney even criticized the sanctions against Iraq as unfairly depriving US companies of the ability to compete for Iraqi Government Contracts. Even now U.S. companies like Halliburton, GE, and Caterpillar have extensive commercial ties to other Evil Axis countries, like Iran. http://www.slate.com/id/2105285/
Perhaps one reason you are overlooking as to why the Europeans wished to avoid the invasion of Iraq is that they have more experience of war. Schroeder was born in the middle of a war that took his father’s life. Chirac was an infantry captain during the bloody conflict in Algeria. Of course, our President and Vice President had the good luck to avoid such misfortune….
DCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 582 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
AirPlay:
I think he meant would Canada have sent troops to Afghanistan in June 2001 (three months before)?
Canada has been a great contributor during the al-Qaeda War and we still mourn the losses incurred and the exercise tragedy.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1107 times:
AirPlay:
I think he meant would Canada have sent troops to Afghanistan in June 2001 (three months before)?
OK...if that is what he meant then "no" I don't think the US would or will in the future be supported by many of its allies in pre-emptive strikes unless there is clear and immediate threat to the safety of US citizens substantiated by authoritative proof.
And...that just didn't happen in the Iraq invasion.
Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1099 times:
B757300 raises an excellent point. If in the summer of 2001, Bush said that we were acting preemptively against terrorism by invading Afghanistan, the Euros would probably have went crazy. It is yet another example of why the "You must be attacked first" policy doesn't work in the 21st century.
What do you think would have happened if Bush had done this in the summer of '01?
QIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
What do you think would have happened if Bush had done this in the summer of '01?
There wouldn't be any different Because no one in those planes was in Afghanistan. They were all in the US and was finished planning the attack.
And If he wanted to attack earlier why didn't he do it then? And don't blame us europeans for it. We have seen that Bush doesn't give a shit about us and goes to war anyway.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
What do you think would have happened if Bush had done this in the summer of '01?
Al Queda operations were not restricted to Afghanistan. It would be difficult to quantify the effects of a pre-emptive strike.
The "you must be attacked first" policy is stupid. It leads only to chaos and esclation of violence. If terrorists fear a pre-emptive strike, they will simply try to strike even earlier and with even more devistation.
And who exactly would chose which country to attack? For the most part, the US has been a lead instigator in the middle east's instability. Maybe Americans should lead a pre-emptive strike on faulty US foreign policy and oust Bush....
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 582 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3304 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20860 posts, 
From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
