Was there any justification for the war in Iraq?

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
...and if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is downright laughable. So...we're struggling in Iraq, so let's take over another country? In doing so, the terrorists (not in Iraq) will say the U.S. just did what they always planned to do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is downright laughable. So...we're struggling in Iraq, so let's take over another country? In doing so, the terrorists (not in Iraq) will say the U.S. just did what they always planned to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm just floating the idea. I'm not completely sold on it by any means. However I do think such ultimatums are worth considering--if not for implemntation now, perhaps for later, depending on developments.

And you know what? I don't think we should care "what the terrorists think." I think we should kill the terrorists; and along with Israel, obliterate their training camps in the Middle East.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ideas on foreign policy areridiculous. The saudis have us by the balls. In terms ofoil supply, andalso in terms ofthem owning ahuge portion ofour economy.

We tell the Saudis that we are taking their oil,

they tell us "[censored] off!" And then suspend oil shipments and pull out all their money from the economy. Soon the US is in ahorrible depression with little hope of ever regaining ourposition in hte world.

Even if we do attack the Saudis, in order to secure our cut off oil supply etc., this will galvanize ever muslim on the planet. Invading the holy land would cause an all out war between muslims and Americans. We'd very likely lose.

[elscorcho768]

[ QUOTE ]
but you need to define war on terror.

Then correlate that with how "democracy" will help and what exactly you mean by democracy. Democracy as in Iran? Democracy as in Iraq?

Then perhaps you can make an argument that what we did in Iraq did some good -- even though that was not why we went in.

It would also be mighty helpful if you stopped labelling opponents of the war as liberals. You immediately lose credibility, IMO.

Until you define it and show the relationship. I have to lump you with the others on this forum who talk about democracy because it makes them feel good and self important

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I define the war on terror as a war against an ideaology bent on the destruction of the United States. Fighting the war should be done in a bunch of ways. First, we need to target and destroy al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks throughout the globe. I believe that attacking Iraq offered us the chance to consolidate the global terrorist network. We needed a way to draw them out from the overall population. Second, we need to fight the war away from the U.S. for the safety and security of US citizens. I don't speak for myself when I say I'm glad that Iraq has brought the fight away from American soil. Bin Laden declared war on America and intended to continue attacks on American soil, but was diverted to iraq. Iraq was going to be the next site in the war on terror and the planners knew it. Third, the war on terror is defined by the straining of assets and the stream of money to al-Qaeda from governments. Iraq was involved in dealing with al-Qaeda. Refer to Stephes Hayes "The Connection".

That is a general defnition of the war on terror from my point of view and how Iraq is a part of it. Thats just my opinion so don't jump on me too much for it.

Also, I believe most opponents of the Iraqi War from the beginning were liberal. Now, many who oppose the war are from both sides. I do not mean to say that any opposition to the war comes from the left, only that prior to the invasion the majority of those who opposed the war would identify themselves as liberal, which isn't a bad thing, in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ideas on foreign policy areridiculous. The saudis have us by the balls. In terms ofoil supply, andalso in terms ofthem owning ahuge portion ofour economy.

We tell the Saudis that we are taking their oil,

they tell us "[censored] off!" And then suspend oil shipments and pull out all their money from the economy. Soon the US is in ahorrible depression with little hope of ever regaining ourposition in hte world.

Even if we do attack the Saudis, in order to secure our cut off oil supply etc., this will galvanize ever muslim on the planet. Invading the holy land would cause an all out war between muslims and Americans. We'd very likely lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we need to be giving such big bucks for oil to those who are trying to defeat us in other ways. The Saudis have used hundreds of billions of dollars of oil money--which we paid them--to fund their plan of spreading the virulently anti-Western Wahhabism throughout the world in their ubiquitous mosques.

If Europe were to wake up fully and truly ally with us, we could jointly tell the anti-Western, terrorist-supporting Middle Eastern oil-producing countries which are our enemies (list to follow) that if they don't cease their support of terrorism and/or stop fomenting anti-Western hatred through their religious teachings, we will simply take them over--and take their oil--instead of paying for it.

The West jointly is far stronger militarily than the Middle East, and I don't see why we should be giving hundreds of billions of dollars to regimes for their oil, when they just turn around and use that money to fight us through terrorist proxies and/or campaigns of spreading anti-Western hate ideology in their mosques and religious schools.

The primary state culprits for support of terrorism are Iran, and to a lesser extent, Syria.

The primary culprits for spreading anti-Western hate propaganda through religious teachings are the worldwide Saudi Arabian funded mosques, and the Pakistani madrassas (religious schools).

The only reason you--and most people--believe that "they have us by the balls" is because we have not really considered the larger military option.

Again, why pay our enemies huge money for something we could just take, IF by paying that money, they just turn around and put those dollars to work to harm us? If they used our money for constructive purposes and they were not our active enemies, it would be entirely a different picture. But we are trading them money for oil and that money is being used to harm us greatly.

I'm not saying we necessarily SHOULD take the super-tough or hawkish line--but we should consider it seriously, at the very least.

The more Iran and Syria sponsor terror, and the more Saudi Arabian-funded mosques sponsor anti-Western hate ideology, and the higher the price of oil gets...the more reason there may be to finally say, "You know what? If you guys keep acting like our enemies, we are going to start treating you as our enemies, and that will mean taking you over and taking your oil. We're not going to keep paying through the nose for your oil if you keep using that money to harm us. So choose wisely." And what's more, we definitely could accomplish it, if the West were to unite against the common ideological and terror-sponsoring foe (which is certain elements in the Middle East).

Then, they wouldn't "have us by the balls"--we'd "have them by the balls". And they could either stop the concerted efforts to do us harm, or face the consequences. And the windfall of all that oil would pay for the wars as well, and probably more.

But the West is only now starting to awaken. Sooner or later, the absurdity of paying a much weaker foe huge sums of money, which are being used against us and to our severe detriment, will become apparent. And then we might ask, why didn't we think of this before? Why have we been supplying the terror masters with hundreds of billions of dollars with which to supply their organizations with weapons, training and explosives? Why have we for so long been supplying the anti-Western hatred religious sponsors such huge sums of money to preach our damnation, defeat, and jihad against the West? The West could just take over Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia--and if they keep physically attacking us through terrorist proxies, and ideologically attacking us through Wahhabist-funded mosques, maybe we--the West--should truly consider doing it.

A pretty stark choice it would be for the terror masters and jihadists, and for the radical Wahhabists then, eh? Why not put their backs to the wall with an absolute ultimatum, instead of continuing to let them put us over a barrel (as they have for decades)?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I define the war on terror as a war against an ideaology bent on the destruction of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are opposed to an idealogy? An idealogy that will destroy the US? Idealogies dont attack, people do. Identify the enemy. Can you identify a condition when this war will end? I think you need to work on this definition some more.

You realize of course that this definition is wide open and could include most anything, depending on the person's interpretation of an idealogy that could destroy us. For example, some one could say that the Columbian drug lord is a target under this definition.

Incidentally, this idealogy stuff is exactly what the FEAR that got us into VietNam, another war not related to the main concern at the time (the Communist idealogy).
[ QUOTE ]
First, we need to target and destroy al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks throughout the globe

[/ QUOTE ]

We are agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that attacking Iraq offered us the chance to consolidate the global terrorist network.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that Iraq was never a part of the "terrorist network" prior to 2003 -- a very odd statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, we need to fight the war away from the U.S. for the safety and security of US citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty soon, more US citizens would have died in Iraq then in all the terrorist attacks in New York combined. Many, many more have been injured.

[ QUOTE ]
Third, the war on terror is defined by the straining of assets and the stream of money to al-Qaeda from governments

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. No problem -- do it. We are, but precious resources have been diverted.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe most opponents of the Iraqi War from the beginning were liberal. Now, many who oppose the war are from both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is likely because, before the war, we were sold FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT. The ones who were thinking for themselves understood the foolishness. Now more are seeing the point!

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary state culprits for support of terrorism are Iran, and to a lesser extent, Syria

[/ QUOTE ]

You were on the right track with Saudi - although with the wrong conclusion. Then this - Iran thing - out of right field?

Other than talking -- i could stay spouting, but I want this to be a rhetoric free post -- about their being sponsors of anti-US terrorism, you have yet to demonstrate that they have backed any attack on the US.

After this throw away line, back to the Saudi.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
we should seriously consider telling the Americans that if they don't stop fomenting anti-Middle East/anti-Muslim/pro-Zionist propaganda and hatred in their chat rooms worldwide (including in America!), and if they don't support us to get rid of the terrorist Zionist state, we are going to just fly a plane into the World Trade Center.


[/ QUOTE ]

So said Ayatollah 6M in his prayer sermon.;-)

[elscorcho768]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you are opposed to an idealogy? An idealogy that will destroy the US? Idealogies dont attack, people do. Identify the enemy. Can you identify a condition when this war will end? I think you need to work on this definition some more.

You realize of course that this definition is wide open and could include most anything, depending on the person's interpretation of an idealogy that could destroy us. For example, some one could say that the Columbian drug lord is a target under this definition

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant the Islamic fundamentalists. I would have thought that was obvious. The war will not end for a while. Bush said this and I don't think any sane person would believe this war would have ended already.

[ QUOTE ]


"I believe that attacking Iraq offered us the chance to consolidate the global terrorist network. "

Considering that Iraq was never a part of the "terrorist network" prior to 2003 -- a very odd statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand. The terrorist network is all over the world and thus hard to find and destroy on a large scale. The Iraq War brought in terrorists from around the world and now there are many al-Qaeda operatives, including Zarqawi, who are now in Iraq and consolidated.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty soon, more US citizens would have died in Iraq then in all the terrorist attacks in New York combined. Many, many more have been injured.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you're referring to the soldiers, then that isn;t a good point to make. The soldiers' duities are to protect America and its people. Since I believe the Iraq war is part of the war on terror, I would have to disagree with your point. Since you don't share my view, there is no way you could agree with my point.

[ QUOTE ]
That is likely because, before the war, we were sold FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT. The ones who were thinking for themselves understood the foolishness. Now more are seeing the point!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only point of your post that actually pissed me off. Aren't you all high and mighty because you can think for yourselves, and us who supported the war were just idiots who have no independent thought and could not possibly find any rationale for invading Iraq. It's one thing to disagree on issues but still hold respect for the other side's belief, but to think the other side is a bunch of brainless followers of their leaders means we can't compromise and work together to reach a outcome beneficial to everyone.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and if they don't recompensate us at least $100 billion in damages for 9/11, we are going to just TAKE their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is downright laughable. So...we're struggling in Iraq, so let's take over another country? In doing so, the terrorists will say the U.S. just did what they always planned to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm just floating.

However I do think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I summarized your contribution in this thread.