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

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!
 
"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. . .
 
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.
 
Spartan said:
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.
 
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.
 
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/special_reports/iraq/story/1486321p-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

IMG_0342.sized.jpg


as always, the press ignored this
 
Doody said:
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/special_reports/iraq/story/1486321p-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
:?:

If only someone could tell me about his good points. Our Prime Minister (John Howard) is rapped in Alawi!!!

The Americans must have amazing confidence in him considering some of the things in his past I have heard about. At least he should be better than Saddam.

What ever happened to Chalabi?

As for the forthcoming election somewhere in the future, I would hate to be one of the poor Iraqis who have the job of updating the electoral roll particularly around Faludja.
 
sherman105 said:
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.

saddam killed thousands a year, and another 60,000 a year starved under him,

he supported/funded/hid/trained terrorist. i think thats reason enough for war! and we cant defeat terrorism with goverments like saddams in power.
 
aussiejohn said:
:?:

If only someone could tell me about his good points. Our Prime Minister (John Howard) is rapped in Alawi!!!

The Americans must have amazing confidence in him considering some of the things in his past I have heard about. At least he should be better than Saddam.

What ever happened to Chalabi?

As for the forthcoming election somewhere in the future, I would hate to be one of the poor Iraqis who have the job of updating the electoral roll particularly around Faludja.

lol, sorry, I misread your post, I thought you meant the American Governmt and whats really going on with him lol
 
Saddam killed tens of thousands, Saddam constantly disrupted the weapons inspectors, Saddam constantly shot at American and British over the no fly zone, Saddam gased his enemies AND his own people. I dont seem to recall seeing this 24/7 on the tv like I do the naked Iraqis (best I recall they are alive) The media has turned into a complete farce. Who needs depressants when you have cnn? Hell, who needs spies when you have Geraldo? Something I noticed in the newspaper the other day pissed me off big time. A headline that read "9/11 commission doesnt know who to blame" I do, George Bush didnt fly the planes into the WTC. Neither did Rumsfeld. Cant seem to recall Condi being on one either. Yet people want to blame them? Now we have an argument over "was the Iraqi war justified". Damn skippy. The same UN resolution that ended Desert Storm stated that Iraq would submit to inspections to verify that he had disarmed the WMD's that he had used before so the guy aint shy about using them. The moment he kicked the inspectors out of Iraq was the moment we should have went in. I mean come on people, JEEZ! The stupid son of a....you know what broke the resolutions time and time again while the UN sat around on its thumbs deciding on who owed them money. Now the UN in my opinion has split the world on Iraq because not only have they let Saddam flex what little bit of muscles he could muster, they hauled arse out of Iraq after they were attacked. If they were attacked and they did nothing....what should that tell you? These people need some friggin help here to calm the chaos.
 
soldierzhonor said:
Saddam killed tens of thousands, Saddam constantly disrupted the weapons inspectors, Saddam constantly shot at American and British over the no fly zone, Saddam gased his enemies AND his own people. I dont seem to recall seeing this 24/7 on the tv like I do the naked Iraqis (best I recall they are alive) The media has turned into a complete farce. Who needs depressants when you have cnn? Hell, who needs spies when you have Geraldo? Something I noticed in the newspaper the other day pissed me off big time. A headline that read "9/11 commission doesnt know who to blame" I do, George Bush didnt fly the planes into the WTC. Neither did Rumsfeld. Cant seem to recall Condi being on one either. Yet people want to blame them? Now we have an argument over "was the Iraqi war justified". Damn skippy. The same UN resolution that ended Desert Storm stated that Iraq would submit to inspections to verify that he had disarmed the WMD's that he had used before so the guy aint shy about using them. The moment he kicked the inspectors out of Iraq was the moment we should have went in. I mean come on people, JEEZ! The stupid son of a....you know what broke the resolutions time and time again while the UN sat around on its thumbs deciding on who owed them money. Now the UN in my opinion has split the world on Iraq because not only have they let Saddam flex what little bit of muscles he could muster, they hauled arse out of Iraq after they were attacked. If they were attacked and they did nothing....what should that tell you? These people need some friggin help here to calm the chaos.

Yes, Saddam certainly needed his bottom kicked and the Iraqis deserve better.

Still having trouble seeing a strong connection between 9/11 and Saddam though. Weren't they mostly Saudis who did it?

Condi Rice and Colin Powell didn't consider Saddam a serious threat to the US in early 2001.
 
SHERMAN said:
The problem is him supporting terror orgs around the world. He financed familys of suicied bombers...

Yes, he did reward families of Palestinian bombers financially. So does this mean he had close links with Al Queda?

I believe Osama and Saddam didn't really get on.

I think you got conned by your Government. So did Australians by ours.

Anyway, we have to win the peace now. Thats a lot harder than winning the war (and what a mis-match that was).
 
I must say thank you to those who have served in Iraq , and those who are going to serve in Iraq(I tried but they told me I was too old at 37 :roll: ). I will come out and say that I am 100% conservative , tory , republican , CDU or whatever other party conservatism stands for in another land. I believe the USA started the action of 'policeman to the world' back in the days of Woodrow Wilson , it has been that way since. Our brothers in England , and Australia have stood with us always and are the USA's greatest allies. The war in Iraq was not only justified , but necessary. Bush , in his wisdom , has chosen to take this war to the land of the terrorists rather than have them bring it to us. For those Americans who opposed the war in Iraq , take a look at the facts ...there has been NO ATTACK on US soil since we began military operations after 9/11. Whilst it be sad that 1000 of our brethren have lost their lives in that Sh*th*le , one cannot argue that the war has been anything other than a success by any yardstick you choose to measure it with. I would refer to the post early in the thread which referred to the similar situation encountered may in the early 20th century....I believe the US General was none other than 'Blacjack' Pershing. The way Pershing dealt with the muslim extremist attacks on his men (at least as far as I can remember of the incident) was to capture a small band of them. Line them up in a row. Slaughter a pig in front of them dip the tips of their rounds in the blood of the swine....lock , load and shoot all but one who be allowed to witness his extremist muslim brethren buried with pig entrails strewn about their bodies , then the one was allowed to escape and tell of what he saw....the uprisings ceased. My moral of the story(which I probably butchered abit :lol: ) , is that some people only respect peace through superior firepower.
 
Back
Top