Timelined Reasons for Iraq... lemme get this right
macgyver06
Posts: 2,500
1.WMDS -unchecked
no lets do this
2.Removal of leader -half-checked
no lets do this
3.Stop Violence- unchecked
no lets try this
4.Install Democracy - unchecked
umm no lets try this
5.keep fighting unknowns funded by unknowns
hmm no here is what we have really wanted all along
6. IRAQ TO BE SELF-GOVERNED
lol why can't we remove this president...we are the people right?
no lets do this
2.Removal of leader -half-checked
no lets do this
3.Stop Violence- unchecked
no lets try this
4.Install Democracy - unchecked
umm no lets try this
5.keep fighting unknowns funded by unknowns
hmm no here is what we have really wanted all along
6. IRAQ TO BE SELF-GOVERNED
lol why can't we remove this president...we are the people right? Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
rest remain the same
they hated the soviets in afghanistan for "their freedom" as well .... i guess
everybody loves raymond and hates invaders
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
1. WMD's, check. Saddam had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program. On top of it all, he certainly acted like a man who had WMD's. He needed people to believe this in order to keep a lock on his power and influence. Even his top generals were blown away when they found out that they did not have WMD's.
2. Removal of leader, check. No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.
3. Stop violence, unchecked. It isn't going to happen quickly, and our mistakes just prolong it. Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.
4. Install Democracy, check. Iraq has legitimately elected government and constitution. Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
5/6. We are only fighting people who are against the Iraqi government, not necessarily against the US. American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
1. I'm not going to comment on this one because we will never truely know what our government was aware of. Some people say they delkiberately lied to us, some say it was an intelligence failure but we will never know the truth so there is no point in argueing over it.
2. Saddam was a bastard but he was no more a threat to us on 9/12/01 than he was on 9/10/01. Saddam was contained and was, unfortunetly for them, only a threat to his own people. Sad to say though that is not our problem. The US is not nor should it ever be in the business of overthrowing dictators simply because they are cruel to their own population. If that is the case we should start with some of our "allies" first.
3. No we haven't stopped the violence, and I may be a pssamist, but I don't think we ever will.The divide between Shi'ite and Sunni runs to deep and the majority of the sensable people in iraq have probably left the country at this point so you are left with a country where close to the majority want to kill each other off.
4. Yes we did install a democracy but it is ineffective. There are large areas of Iraq where the Iraqi government, military, and police forces have no authority or control.
5/6. You pretty much made my point with you last sentence. The middle class is gone and you need a large middle class in order to build a stable democracy. All you are left with a rich politicians and the poor starving masses who are easy prey for the militants, insurgents, and jihadist. These people have no sign of hope in their future so they are promised false hope by these vultures. Without that middle class Iraq has no future and it's time we realized that there is no military solution to this problem. All the soldiers in the world are not going to put this country back together again.
please show us the weapons you don't have.
love
a humiliated gwb
there were inspectors in iraq who were told to leave by the coalition of the willing to go to war for no good reason
oh ,assholes, please don't make me defend saddam... I'm a liberal ..i have hated his ass forever...even when you cum-swallower's were sucking his dick when he invaded iran....remember???
wipe your mouth
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
1. Agree with you there.
2. I mostly agree with you here too. These are my own personal views, but it wasn't Saddam who was the threat as much as the decrepid state of the Middle East was the threat. Oppresion, hatred and hopelessness runs rampant there with the vast majority of the 21 Arab nations being either dictatorships or monarchies. The average Per Capita income in those countries is $3,900 a year, despite many of these nations overflowing in oil that sells for over $60 a barrel.
So my point is that the Middle East needs pluralistic politics, the people need a voice, the people need hope. And the only way to get that is through democracy. And as has been proven in the past, democracy can be established out of the ashes of war. Many, many people in Iraq want a democtatic government, but it only takes a few thousand commited militants to disrupt this process. This is what we are seeing now in Iraq.
At any rate, I was in favor of invasion of Iraq to transform the entire region. Saddam had no more legitimacy ruling that country than we do. Our goal was to turn the country over to its people. But the implementation has been down right criminial in its neglect.
3. No we haven't stopped the voilence, and I chalk most of the blame up to Rumsfeld. Had we changed our strategies in 04/05 instead of 06/07, there is a good chance that things would be quite different in Iraq right now. We waiting until just about the entire country and congress turned against the effort before we adapted our strategies.
4. I agree that the government is largely ineffective. There are many reasons for it, but in my own view I don't fault the government. I just chalk it up to the US fucking up for so long and the fact that any democracy is gonig to have large obstacles to overcome. Iraq could be the hardest place that a democracy has tried to take hold that anywhere else in the world at any other time. The challenges there are monumental, so much so that this effort doesn't stand a good chance of working.
5. But I think if given enough time, support and appropriate resources it can work there. The question I think is... is it worth it. I say yes, but respect those that say no... there are many valid reasons for not believing in it.
6. If we can at least get the situation turned around and headed in the right direction, many of these nationals will return. They love there country and want to help build it up again, but they can't becuase of the lack of security. Restore security and these people will return to restore their country.
interesting coming from an individual named B Nice don't you think? Oh, I get it, it's sarcasm right? You prankster you.
I agree that if peace is restored to Iraq a middle class will develope, but I believe that we are fighting a loosing battle now. I blame it on the insurgents but, much like you, also place a great deal of blame on our strategy. If we had done this the right way from the beginning, building up international support specially among Muslim countries, proper troop levels, etc, we would have reduced the chances of mass choas breaking out as it has now. We pursued a failed stragetgy for too long and I think we passed the point of no return. The jihadist, insurgents, and militias are too entrenched in the government, military and security forces to ever be rooted out. We are also failed to adequately deal with the influence that surround nations play on Irfaq's future. While we may have kept a close eye on Iran and Syria, it is my opinion, that we turned a blind eye on Saudi Arabia. We failed to see the big picture because the people who took us to war did not, and still do not, possess the ability to think more than 5 minutes ahead. Lastly the whole idea of spreading demogracy through military force is one that I can not get behind because I believe it is a flawed policy.
good point
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
i dont even know where to begin with this craziness so i will tackle them in order...lol ...think FOR YOURSELF BEFORE YOU REPLY...please....reach back in the brain and come back down to earth.. ok here we go
1.WMDS WERE NEVER FOUND!
2.SADDAM WAS REMOVED (and by the look of things...maybe he wasnt the leader.... could you comprehend my idea on this?????? )
3.THEY DONT WANT US THERE! ITS HOLY LAND.
4.Your comments here bring light to my #2 in this reply...speculate all you want...peace is supposed to be brought...according to BUSH'S original plans...can you twist this around somehow to mislead everyone of the point that... PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED...do you know what that means...no tommorow for themm... no breakfast...no next shower...gone...gone..forever... violence
5. THEY DONT KNOW WHO THEY ARE FIGHTING AND NEITHER DO YOU...so stop pretending!
go sit alone and think for yourself.
good day
i hate him to...but people cant seem to comprehend realities anymore...they are stuck in the past as the present day slips by them oncccceeeeeee againnnnnnnnnnn...
You don't have to agree with anything I wrote, but it's hardly worthy of being called "crazy". If anything, all of my points are well thought out and worthy of discussion at the very least.
You tell me to go sit alone and think, despite all of the well-reasoned arguments I make above. This in contrast to your "PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED...do you know what that means...no tommorow for themm... no breakfast...no next shower...gone...gone..forever... violence
As if that is going to convince anybody of anything. I'm sure that is the arguement people put on the table at the UN, or national security advisors lay out behind closed doors. I realize this is just a message board, but you are indicative of why I can't take the left's view of Iraq seriously...
i hardly believe there is an argument that people are dying...just to let ya know....
are you in the military?? you really should be!
army to narrow it down...and do bad on your written tests for all of us