WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ!!

senojekips said:
The issue is now greatly confused by so called "patriots" trying to remove an invader. It would be almost impossible to define what is behind much of what is happening at present.

As much as I believe democracy would be good for Iraq, I cannot blame certain sections of the Iraqi people for wanting us out of their country. I would do the same if anyone were to invade my country, but I wouldn't necessarily put it down to my "machismo". Each and every case would need to be judged on it's merits.

All of the above notwithstanding I personally feel that there is a possibility of machismo playing at least some part in the continuance of hostilities. Give a man a gun, and a cause, and people can behave in strange and unpredictable ways.
Click to expand...


Yeah - but my question to you was does Iran qualify under your 'machismo in the middle east scenario' ? Machismo or Extreme Danger?
 
Whoa, we switched horses there somewhere,... I'm talking about Iraq which is what this thread is about. Iran is little more than another annoying brat on the block, yeah they have the same problem with their machismo, but they are not credible (same as Sadman) so no one's taking any notice of them hence the great effort in trying to convince us that they are on their way to building a bomb. If it were a real threat, I think there are other people who would be taking a lot more interest than the half hearted attempt at bombing their facilities a few month ago.

This of course has no bearing on whether Gee Dubya's good ole backroom boys can't drum up another excuse to invade. As to whether they succeed in that plan is purely up to the gullibility of the American public.
 
The way Iran's linked with Iraq is their intelligence services using it as a playground to piss off America. They're apparently doing that pretty well unfortunately.

Spike, the public is always stupid. I see stupidity on the streets here in Korea all the time. I have no doubt that North Korean agents in South Korea are having an absolute field day these days. They don't check facts, they take it for face value and sooner or later everyone believes the same thing and they can't really figure out where they got their information from. Obviously North Korea wants to do something here. South Korea's had 3 presidents who were real North Korea friendly, the last of which was practically a North Korean ambassador to South Korea. The public is stupid. Complaining about it is like getting pissed off that you're getting wet when you're standing outside without any rain protection on a rainy day.

As for people and want of democracy. People will side with whoever can supply them with security, stability and jobs. If it appears that the street gang will stick around longer than the Americans, you'd have to be an idiot to side with the Americans. It's that simple. Every time politicians and the press talk about pulling out, they are actively losing the war.
 
senojekips said:
As I said earlier, Middle eastern Machismo coupled with a good dose of over confidence in his own infallibility.

Middle eastern machismo is somewhat like that seen in some South American countries, and it gets plenty of them killed.
Click to expand...


Seno - I was not switching horses, I only asked the question 'So did you think Iran qualified on that score' because you had suggested that as a reason for Sadaam's strange defiance, and I was comparing it with Iran's confrontational attitude to USA now. Is Iran similarly in danger of too much tail-twisting was my meaning. Is it misplaced machismo again, in your view.

Anyway you have now answered the question in your last post and I am here just explaining how Iran cropped up.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, I'm not accusing you of switching horses in the accusatory sense, so much as stating that I had not read your question and answered previously on Iraq not Iran.:wink:

Very easily missed when making the assumption that we were in a thread devoted to Iraq

Redneck, I agree about the public thing, even though I'm a part of "the public". I guess I'm somewhat annoyed at the level of stupidity displayed by certain groups within our population. The PC crowd being top of the list, followed by brainless twits who have no idea of the priorities that govern the lives of the nation as a whole, especially in the international scene. This group includes radical voters who are blind to good decisions made by the political parties other than the one they support.
 
Last edited:
Now that it seems fairly clear to everybody apart from G. Bush, that there was no reason to go into Iraq, we might start asking: Why are we still there? Apart from the Puppet government, is there anybody who loves us?
 
"We" are not there. Not you, not me.
The reason why coalition troops are still there is clear: if they leave, Iraq will turn into a major terrorist safe haven. An Afghanistan with oil and some educated people.
The reason why troops were sent in in the first place is the big question.
 
Agreed for the most part, except the last question.
I know why they were put there, I am wondering though that if their was any lying, by whom? I don't think their was any lying but if their was I'd like to know who, with facts, not wishful thinking accusations.
 
There were reasons, they weren't very strong apparently (since there wasn't any WMDs) and really not strong enough considering the consequences. Not just the amount of casualties but the size of the commitment.
 
I know WMD's were there, I saw some. I don't know if what was there was moved or whatever, I assume it was moved but I also assume some folks know these answers and are not allowed really to share what they know. Or, some folks know that don't want us to know. I think mostly the latter but wouldn't be shocked by the first also being at play as well. Even with that though, I still don't think Iraq was more of a threat to us than Iran is and was.
 
Nope. If it was oil, we wouldn't be paying over 4 bucks a gallon. If we were paying prices like the Saudis and Iranians do 40 cents and 45 cents, then I could see that argument being valid.
 
Actually to be fair the soaring oil prices have nothing to do with that. It's just that there are more customers now. China and India are huge buyers.
 
If it is actually for oil, don't expect the common citizen to reap any benefit. It goes to the contractors and rich folks involved with such things.
 
major liability said:
If it is actually for oil, don't expect the common citizen to reap any benefit. It goes to the contractors and rich folks involved with such things.
Click to expand...
well said.

Oil companies know that people have to buy gasoline for their cars. And now they've discovered that people will still buy gas no matter how high the price is. So prices, though they may not get any higher as long as the backlash against them continues, they won't get any lower either.

And yes more people in India and China are buying cars. But enough to cause the price of gas to double in one year? I think not.
 
Kinda like ice cream in South Korea. They had a price fixing scandal... heck no wonder the prices were getting outrageous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top