Was the invasion of Iraq necessary, can they fight back? - Page 3




 
--
 
July 16th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
I agree with you that removing saddam was a good thing, and i think we did go to iraq because it was seen as something to restore public confidence in that we were going after a threat to our countries! as it would be in al the media whereas going after al queda was not so easily shown in the media! i think we should of let iraq be for the time being as it was not as great a threat as al queda is!
July 17th, 2004  
GADefence
 
"Yeah, that's true -- in 1990. People might have forgotten it. I think it's right for the US to do what they have done in Iraq. Better to install a new government in Iraq than to let the former regime continue. What the world needs is peace.



'War is the path to peace'"

Now, this is something I find perticularly funny.

You just said better for america to install a new regime in Iraq then let the former one continue, yet the former one was also installed by America. I see a loop here. . .
July 17th, 2004  
Spartan
 
Well, I suppose you would rather have let Saddam stay in power and continue his atrocities against his very own people? IMO, it's better for the US to at least try and make a fresh start. It doesn't matter how he got there, it does matter that he's gone. Stop living in the past- Maybe the US made a mistake then, but they're cleaning it up now.
--
July 17th, 2004  
GADefence
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
Well, I suppose you would rather have let Saddam stay in power and continue his atrocities against his very own people? IMO, it's better for the US to at least try and make a fresh start. It doesn't matter how he got there, it does matter that he's gone. Stop living in the past- Maybe the US made a mistake then, but they're cleaning it up now.
I agree with the notion of removing saddam from power. But as for atrocities, they suffered that much. So I don't believe it was a very good idea to get him out of power by burning the land, weeding the population and (then) installing a bran new US backed dictator.
July 18th, 2004  
DontEatAnAnimal
 
I agree with GADefence. Thats why people over there are pissed. But if say New England lost over 10,000 of its citizen just because i dunno france invaded us and didnt like are governent and ruler eventually got around to giving us utilities and then power i strongly believe people would be shooting the french and being so called "terrorist" when in actuallity there just rebels that dont want the idea of America staying in there country forevery like what we have done with ever counrty we have succcesivly invaded.
July 18th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
The rebels in Iraq are a double edged sword. On one side, they are atticking and killing the US and our allies. On the other side they are attacking Iraqi infrastrucure. The Iraqi oil pipelines are attacked on a weekly basis. Power and telephone lines are cut down all the time. The lack of utilities is a direct result of the rebels actions. If they had not attacked such things, life would be much better in Iraq.

http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/s...-8940032c.html

BTW, Sadam's forces did a number on bridges around Baghdad. I was on a sercurity detail to protect civilian and army engineers as they inspected bridges. Most damage was caused by Sadams forces. Also, my unit built a bridge in Mosul to re open a 4 lane bridge



as always, the press ignored this
July 18th, 2004  
GADefence
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
The rebels in Iraq are a double edged sword. On one side, they are atticking and killing the US and our allies. On the other side they are attacking Iraqi infrastrucure. The Iraqi oil pipelines are attacked on a weekly basis. Power and telephone lines are cut down all the time. The lack of utilities is a direct result of the rebels actions. If they had not attacked such things, life would be much better in Iraq.

http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/s...-8940032c.html

BTW, Sadam's forces did a number on bridges around Baghdad. I was on a sercurity detail to protect civilian and army engineers as they inspected bridges. Most damage was caused by Sadams forces. Also, my unit built a bridge in Mosul to re open a 4 lane bridge
Something like this you have to view from more then one side.

On the US side, as you said, life would be much better. There would be power for houses and there would be the capability for people to communicate. As well as that, the fact that money would be flowing would improve the economy is a bonus if oil lines were not cut.

But then, there's also the rebels side. From there point of view, power and phone lines are a comfort for the troops which both invaded their lands and are still hunting them, destroying these helps them greatly. Also, they can view it as an invasion of foreigners in their lands. And, as far as the oil goes, the people who are getting the most money out of this are American investors and distributors. For rebels, striking at these and forcing their reconstruction and repair is a boost. Since it weakens their enemies.
July 19th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Kirruth's point is right.
July 19th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Hmmm:

*Saddam was a tirant that killed and tortured his own people.
*Saddam supported terrorists around the world.
*Saddam attacked countrys with no provocation what so ever.
*Saddam used WMD against his enemys twice.
*Saddam was one of the biggest destabalisers in the area.
*Saddam had plans to expan westwards into Jordan and Israel.


Enough of a reason? It is hard to find a case where the good of the world and the intrests of the USA come togather so well. It dosent matter if oil was a part of it. The main thing is that Saddam is gone.
July 20th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
People, you seem to be missing something.

In WWII Hitler posed almost no threat to the US at the time, we had a larger Navy and a 3000 Mile buffer zone, but still we went to war with Germany to stop Hitler.

Now Iraq more of a threat to us than Hitler did, 9/11 should have proved how easy it would be for Saddam to pay some terrorist to hit us. Some people say that when you add up the dead from the Iran-Iraq war, the Kurds he killed, Coalition forces dead, dead Israelites, they add up to more people than Hitler killed, I personally doubt this, and if it is the truth then we should all be damned to hell for sitting by idly while Saddam did all this. It is our duty as leader of the Free world to bring Freedom to the World. Bush should be though of as a hero, not the tyrant, he may have saved thousands of American lives along with thousand more Iraqi's.

While I am a democrat I am a staunch Bush supporter (actually I am tired of people who could not do a better job than Bush in Iraq or who didn't even have the balls to go into Iraq in the first place criticizing him, that's right, I am sick of my fellow democrats.) and seeing as to how I will in all likely hood be going to Iraq in about 18 Months I have had plenty of time to think about this. I know what I am doing, while I don't see this as a crusade I feel it is my christian duty to help thy fellow man, even if they are Muslim or Jewish, they are also people who have rights and if they can't fight for their own rights then I will do it for them and I will be proud to have served my country and to have made the world a better place.

If anybody wants to challenge me on this one I am all yours, but I will be leaving tomorrow morning so you will either need to respond within the next few hours or patiently wait two weeks until I can respond.