Why did the US do it?Follow

The Government of the United States of America decided to invade and conquer the legitimately recognized soveriegn nation of Iraq to oust the elected governing party of that nation. This decision was based on intelligence reports from numerous US and world wide agencies stating that the Saddam Hussein ruled nation was a threat to the world and to the United States directly. It is hard to believe that a country as militarily strong and technologically advanced as the United States would even have to view a country such as what Iraq was as a viable threat, especially if the government would have put eyes and ears in the inner circle of the Hussein Regime. The true threat to the United States is not in recognized, established governments but terror groups that have no boundaries.

Using the arguement that Iraq supported these terrorist groups with money and training facilities to justify action is ill conceived, when again if the United States and the coalition actually invested in effective human intel in key locations would have allowed for more effective control over the terror groups activites.

The WMD arguement was possibly the strongest arguement for engaging in the ouster of the legitimate government of Iraq, however the failure to produce evidence of such WMD with-in six months after the end of major combat proves that the decision to go to WAR may have been premature.

Of course history will be written to say that the cause was justified because the atrocities against the Iraqi's was stopped, though at the cost of US and Coalition lives. We should have left the Iraqi's to themselves and found a way to insight rebellion with-in the ranks of Husseins regime before engaging in the current conflict that we find our sons and daughters dying in.

Because we can.

What an egotistical and typical American response. No wonder the United States reputation and status in the world has been on a decline in the last 3 years. Leadership is not about being the biggest, baddest ************* on the planet and stuffing our ideals and morals on others. Leadership is recognizing that not everyone agrees with us and compromising on a solution that all parties will accept. Though there are times when tough decisions need to be made and lives need to be risked to accomplish the mission, there where still other options that could have been utilized before pissing off a good portion of the planet.

So just "Because we can" does not always mean we should.

because sadaam is a biotch, any disagreements there? when the citizens of the country you are blowing to hell are out in the streets cheering you on, you know something is wrong with the country and it needed it. if sadaam started bombing the hell out of our country we wouldn't have been out in the streets cheering, well most of us anyways, i could see a few of you doing it lol.
so maybe bush did it for the wrong reasons, it still needed done however


Edited, Fri Apr 30 14:28:44 2004 by melbolt

No disagreement that Saddam was not deserving of being removed from power, however American and coalition lives should not have been risked to achieve the end goals. Had the US properly supported the Kurds after DS1 at the time when the opportunity for rebellion was ripe and primed then we would not have been faced with the current conflict. Removing Saddam was a good move, but there should have been a less destructive way in accomplishing this, by usurping his power and causing a rebellion with in the country.

If we are going to discuss this, please add more credibility to your arguements other than one liners.

Thanks and peace to you.

i wouldn't call them the elected govenment exactly but i'll go with you on that one Are these the same people that are now bombing you at every oppurtunity and dragin you corpses through the street for public mutilation? oh yes so they are.

There was no legitimate reason for going into Iraq and it has left GWB with a huge running sore that he could well do without.

Iraq was never going to be a threat to America in the next 40 years and since Saddam was not allied to Al Queada thats takes out both the reasons stated by the US and UK govenments for going in.

I agree with Stok about the assistance to the Kurds after DS was the correct course of action.




Edited, Fri Apr 30 14:36:53 2004 by tarv

Just playing Devil's Advocate here:

How do you suggest we incite a rebellion? By supplying them with arms? Yeah, that's always worked out well in the past for the US.

I think the number one answer to that question ( the main question of this forum) would be because Bush was in charge. Men with little d'icks often try to compensate by doing big things. It also gave the majority of the american people some feeling that their government wasn't going to take it up the ***.

Edited, Fri Apr 30 14:44:46 2004 by celinaredfern

Edited, Fri Apr 30 14:45:24 2004 by celinaredfern

You see it is the improbable arguement that is what causes beratement and flames toward posters trying to have a serious and well thought out debate.

Had Hussien been able to bomb the United States we would have never invaded, because of the potential risk that the government would have put American Citizens at.

The biggest threat that we have as a country is our loose borders and the ability for terrorists to come in and the left and right wing fanatics of this country getting their hands on materiel to make a dirty bomb or North Korea or Iran selling a briefcase nuke to one of the fanatical groups.

Sorry i think that was our fault, well you know spreading the wealth and all that.

"It was you, I learned it from you!!!"

"The hell you did, when did you ever see me smoking shwag like this. *****, please."

Another of England's triumphs, China.

Eb

Hindsight, my ***. ;)

props