Thread for Opponents of Iraq War: "Why"?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war had nothing to do with democracy, human rights, etc
It was all about money and establishing military bases next to Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for that revelation! I'd love to read some factual support for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

Then lets see some evidence, since apparently all you can muster is a personal attack.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war had nothing to do with democracy, human rights, etc
It was all about money and establishing military bases next to Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for that revelation! I'd love to read some factual support for that.

[/ QUOTE ]


Facts and evidence are for liberal pansies.
I go with my gut...and my gut is telling me it is the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those liberal pansies and others who are rational and logical.

[old dogg]

Helping Iraq to become a secure and stable nation in the heart of the Middle East is in the national inter*est of the United States. Iraq's best chance for long-term stability is to develop democratic institutions that will protect the basic civil, political, and human liberties and rights of the Iraqi people.

In Iraq, freedom, democracy, and civil society— nonexistent under Saddam Hussein—remain precari*ous. U.S. government efforts, as well as the efforts of non-governmental organizations, to promote democ*racy and good governance rely on the security umbrella provided by the U.S. military presence. A precipitous U.S. military withdrawal would almost certainly doom U.S. and Iraqi efforts to build a free and democratic Iraq.

The Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other factions require a secure environment to reach political accom*modation. The United States and the international community should do everything possible to help to stabilize Iraq. Specifically, the U.S. Congress should not interfere with ongoing military efforts to secure and stabilize Iraq or legislate restrictions on the use of U.S. military force.
Yes, the war in Iraq can be won. Winning would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism—unlike Saddam's Iraq, which was an enemy in that war. This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent—radical Islamists and Saddam's Baathist supporters—are sworn enemies of the United States. If we turn our backs on them now, their threat will only grow.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is now a major front in the global war to combat al-Qaeda and is critical to the outcome of U.S. efforts to contain Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe true but I don't even think that it is true. OTOH, had the US (and its few allies, fewer and fewer of them, by the way) not invaded Iraq, they was no Al-Quaeda in Iraq (or no more of them, than in the US, lets say - should we consider invading the US [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) we would (the world and the US have a much smaller problem. The entire destabilization of Iraq is a direct result of US acts and failures!

[ QUOTE ]
Helping Iraq to become a secure and stable nation in the heart of the Middle East is in the national inter*est of the United States. Iraq's best chance for long-term stability is to develop democratic institutions that will protect the basic civil, political, and human liberties and rights of the Iraqi people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am sure that most Iraqis outside of Iraq think so (ie rich Iraqis in the US), but that is definitely not what most Iraqis in Iraq think has been achieved. To say the reverse is a denial of what is so obvious it hardly warrants a comment. That is, except, that despite the contradictions this is still the view the US government would prefer, and try, against all odds, to promote.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is now a major front in the global war to combat al-Qaeda and is critical to the outcome of U.S. efforts to contain Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe true but I don't even think that it is true. OTOH, had the US (and its few allies, fewer and fewer of them, by the way) not invaded Iraq, they was no Al-Quaeda in Iraq (or no more of them, than in the US, lets say - should we consider invading the US [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) we would (the world and the US have a much smaller problem. The entire destabilization of Iraq is a direct result of US acts and failures!

[ QUOTE ]
Helping Iraq to become a secure and stable nation in the heart of the Middle East is in the national inter*est of the United States. Iraq's best chance for long-term stability is to develop democratic institutions that will protect the basic civil, political, and human liberties and rights of the Iraqi people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am sure that most Iraqis outside of Iraq think so (ie rich Iraqis in the US), but that is definitely not what most Iraqis in Iraq think has been achieved. To say the reverse is a denial of what is so obvious it hardly warrants a comment. That is, except, that despite the contradictions this is still the view the US government would prefer, and try, against all odds, to promote.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Government just (very recently, maybe a month or two ago) declassified documents that said Al Queadia was already working on making Iraq the next staging ground for terrorism, BEFORE we invaded.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
The Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other factions require a secure environment to reach political accom*modation. The United States and the international community should do everything possible to help to stabilize Iraq. Specifically, the U.S. Congress should not interfere with ongoing military efforts to secure and stabilize Iraq or legislate restrictions on the use of U.S. military force.
Yes, the war in Iraq can be won. Winning would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism—unlike Saddam's Iraq, which was an enemy in that war. This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent—radical Islamists and Saddam's Baathist supporters—are sworn enemies of the United States. If we turn our backs on them now, their threat will only grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

you sound like a republican (not that there is anything wrong with that)--if you want to look for parallels, look no further than the former state of Yugoslavia. It like Iraq was a coalition of ethnic groups held together by a strong ruthless leader. Once the leader fell, all hell broke loose. The solution to the problem will be similar--no matter how unpopular they may be with some people and countries. The strategies employed from the begining were so flawed that this appears to be the only choice. Democracy is nothing but a pipe dream now.

I blame everybody for not bringing up to the potential pitfalls of the this policy in the runup to the war--that includes republicans, democrats, the press and the masses of sheep aka the public.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
working on making Iraq the next staging ground for terrorism, BEFORE we invaded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Say no more. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] My bet is that they are currently some terrorists in the US working on planning some future terrorist acts of some form elsewhere. What's more, the US government publicly agrees with this. I guess the rest of the world needs to invade the US. LOL

[Moseley]

I do not believe the U.S. should be invading a country unless it poses an eminent threat to its own security. In my view, that includes its economic security, therefore, if Iraq had the capability, and evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt, that it intended to participate in an attack upon the U.S. that would wreck havoc upon our economic structure, then we would have the right to prevent that action from occurring by taking whatever means necessary.

I did not believe Iraq posed such a threat. Then came one of the few people in politics that I respected: Colin Powell. His testimony and evidence provided to the U.N. convinced me that the invasion was necessary. I believed that he would not be presenting the information to the U.N. unless he himself believed it. I also believed that he was (despite being the Sec of State and not the Secretary of Defense) a principal player in the planning of the invasion. In my mind, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were not competent enough to be the civilian leader of such an action. The Joint Chiefs of Staff needed a civilian above them that knew the labors involved with such an invasion, therefore, his presence in the planning would ensure a plan that would bring the action to a swift conclusion. After all, Iraq’s army was primitive compared to ours.

I believed, based upon Powell’s testimony and interviews, that the invasion was necessary to crush a concerted effort within Iraq, to promote terrorism. Specifically, the manufacturing of WMDs for distribution to terrorists.

The necessity of the invasion was a no brainer.

I was fooled once again.

We sent in 110k troops, instead of 300k plus as recommended by Powell, which was supported by the Pentagon plan for invading Iraq, which, was 12 years in the making.

Instead, we used contractors, with ties to Cheney, to support the troops and ended up witnessing one of the most corrupt operations in the history of the U.S. Greed circumvented Patriotism.

The U.S. renamed french fries to american fries because the French would not side with us. We claimed they were against the invasion primarily because the had corporations with huge contracts with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq, should, in my opinion, prove without a shadow of a doubt, that the U.S. government is the most corrupt government in the western world.

The fact that Bush was re-elected and so many U.S. citizens believe that the invasion was just, proves, in my mind, that the corruption within our government will never be crushed, because the citizens of America are sheep.

They are real good at whining and articulating their position on matters, however, they are not willing to sacrifice their own personal security in the name of Patriotism to crush the government that rules them.

[DING-DONG YO]

Why do people constantly state that "our reasons for going to war were flawed, therefore we should pull the troops out"?

At this point, how we got there is largely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we are there. What should be the issue at hand is what is best for the iraqi people and our troops.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people constantly state that "our reasons for going to war were flawed, therefore we should pull the troops out"?

At this point, how we got there is largely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we are there. What should be the issue at hand is what is best for the iraqi people and our troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT