Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

War in Iraq...what was the intention?

Page 3 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,334
Location: Over there

21 Jul 2011, 4:02 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Saddam was providing financial support for terrorists to attack a US ally, damn straight we had every right to intervene.
Whereas only a few years earlier the USA was doing the same thing for Saddam so he could fight for the USA by proxy. The "other" sort of intervention.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,334
Location: Over there

21 Jul 2011, 4:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oil, revenge, glory!
Shock! Awe! Oh crap!


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Jul 2011, 4:44 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Saddam was providing financial support for terrorists to attack a US ally, damn straight we had every right to intervene.
Whereas only a few years earlier the USA was doing the same thing for Saddam so he could fight for the USA by proxy. The "other" sort of intervention.


And as far as Saddam's support of terrorists went, he gave humanitarian support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - solely to gain stature in the Arab world.
In fact, Saddam Hussein kept his country free of terrorists, because he saw religious extremists like them a threat to his secular rule. In fact, there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq - in the northern zone, where the U.S. commanded the airspace. The Kurds constantly were at war with them, but they had absolutely no connection to Saddam Hussein.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Simonono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,299

21 Jul 2011, 4:52 pm

Revenge for 9/11, and then absolutely nothing else.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Jul 2011, 11:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Saddam was providing financial support for terrorists to attack a US ally, damn straight we had every right to intervene.
Whereas only a few years earlier the USA was doing the same thing for Saddam so he could fight for the USA by proxy. The "other" sort of intervention.


And as far as Saddam's support of terrorists went, he gave humanitarian support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - solely to gain stature in the Arab world.
In fact, Saddam Hussein kept his country free of terrorists, because he saw religious extremists like them a threat to his secular rule. In fact, there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq - in the northern zone, where the U.S. commanded the airspace. The Kurds constantly were at war with them, but they had absolutely no connection to Saddam Hussein.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The invasion greatly increased the amount of Muslim nuts in Iraq and forced Saddam to embrace radical Muslims before falling as an act of desperation.

If people wanted less terrorists, Iraq's war had the opposite effect.


_________________
.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Jul 2011, 12:31 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Saddam was providing financial support for terrorists to attack a US ally, damn straight we had every right to intervene.
Whereas only a few years earlier the USA was doing the same thing for Saddam so he could fight for the USA by proxy. The "other" sort of intervention.


And as far as Saddam's support of terrorists went, he gave humanitarian support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - solely to gain stature in the Arab world.
In fact, Saddam Hussein kept his country free of terrorists, because he saw religious extremists like them a threat to his secular rule. In fact, there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq - in the northern zone, where the U.S. commanded the airspace. The Kurds constantly were at war with them, but they had absolutely no connection to Saddam Hussein.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If Saddam played his cards differently we might not have invaded Iraq in the first place. For starters if he was extremely open about the fact he didn't have the weapons, and two he could have always started blaming the Iranian leaders for supporting terrorists that were illegally entering his country (which the Iranians were), it would have put the Bush Administration in a pickle.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jul 2011, 2:10 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Saddam was providing financial support for terrorists to attack a US ally, damn straight we had every right to intervene.
Whereas only a few years earlier the USA was doing the same thing for Saddam so he could fight for the USA by proxy. The "other" sort of intervention.


And as far as Saddam's support of terrorists went, he gave humanitarian support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - solely to gain stature in the Arab world.
In fact, Saddam Hussein kept his country free of terrorists, because he saw religious extremists like them a threat to his secular rule. In fact, there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq - in the northern zone, where the U.S. commanded the airspace. The Kurds constantly were at war with them, but they had absolutely no connection to Saddam Hussein.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If Saddam played his cards differently we might not have invaded Iraq in the first place. For starters if he was extremely open about the fact he didn't have the weapons, and two he could have always started blaming the Iranian leaders for supporting terrorists that were illegally entering his country (which the Iranians were), it would have put the Bush Administration in a pickle.


I think Saddam didn't admit to his lack of WMD possibly because he believed it would make people perceive of his dick as small. And yes, I think his available fire power and weapons were a self reflection of his own manhood.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

22 Jul 2011, 7:07 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Money and Oil.....even my friend who fought in that war knows it was basically for oil, to him it was a job you don't hear him bragging about how great what he did was. His job was to kill people and that is just how it was.


This.

Caspian Sea oil, IIRC.

That's all it was about. Everything else was propaganda to drum up public support.