Why is America at war

[Bigfalcon65]

back to the war please

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

It's just the natural order of things Big Falcon. You start a thread and then 3 or 4 pages into it it changes topic ever so slightly. And then again and again and again until it's a completely different topic. See! It's happening right now with this post!

Back on topic. The Iraq war started with good intentions (Well, they were better than the current agenda.). The U.S. government believed that Saddam had WMD's, however that does not seem to be the case. I believe that Saddam was going to try to develop WMD's but he never had them, and was in fact lying to stay in power. Ok, so the Americans mad a mistake, we all do. Another reason was because of supposed links to Al Quaeda. However these links were never found, and this was another one of the big reasons that Iraq was invaded. Well, 2 mistakes isn't that bad. Now, something the US got right. The 3rd big reason was to remove Saddam from his leadership and create a democracy. Well, let's see. Saddam captured? Check. Democracy created? Sort of. They tried, but it wasn't implemented very well. But Iraq does have an elected leader now, so I'll give it a check. But lets take a look back a little...

Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[32] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[33] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).

This was aid given to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. If this military aid had not been given to Iraq we probably would not have the problem we have today. So why was American Aid given to Iraq? Because Ruhollah Khomeini came into power and Saddam was thought to be the lesser of two evils. I'd also like to point out that the US recently gave the Iraqi insurgents weapons because they are enemies with Al Quaeda for the exact same reason! Also, you may be saying that "everyone else gave support to Iraq, why single out the US?". Because they were the largest contributer and because for most of the arms the US did not sell the weapons as the other country's did, they gave them away. You can take that however you want. Now, back to the present. So they got rid of Saddam, that was the only thing that they were supposed to do, but they're still in Iraq! First we're going to see what the people think. Iraqi and American and then we'll take a critical look at it.

Here's the opinion of the Iraqis...

64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005.
88% described the availability of electricity as being either somewhat or very bad, up from 65% in 2004.
69% described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004.
88% described the availability of fuel for cooking and driving as being somewhat or very bad.
58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.

And now the Americans...

Views of U.S. Congress, public, and troops
At the outset of the war, the U.S. Congress and public opinion supported the notion that the Iraq War was part of the global war on terrorism. The 2002 Congressional resolution authorising military force against Iraq cited the U.S. determination to "prosecute the war on terrorism", and in April 2003, one month after the invasion, a poll found that 77% of Americans agreed that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism.[98] In 2004, an Army War College report said the war diverts attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda and called for downsizing the war on terrorism and focusing instead on the threat from Al Qaeda.[99] After the 2006 midterm Congressional elections, Congress has pushed to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, in part based on the argument that Iraq is a distraction, as opposed to a part of, the war on terror. Likewise, a January 2007 poll found that 57% of Americans feel that the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terror.[100][101] By June 2007, polls revealed that only 30% of Americans support the war.[102][103]

Notice the parts I bolded.

And why don't we look at what the other country's think, hmm?

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. Now at about 56%, India's support for the War on Terrorism has been stable.[113] Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Center polls conducted in 2004, "majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is American control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world."[114] Dr. Steven Kull testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 17, 2007, that "a new feeling about the US that has emerged in the wake of 9-11. This is not so much an intensification of negative feelings toward the US as much as a new perception of American intentions. There now seems to be a perception that the US has entered into a war against Islam itself. I think perhaps the most significant finding of our study is that across the four countries (Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia), 8 in 10 believe that the US seeks to 'weaken and divide the Islamic world.'"[115]

Well, that doesn't look too good. Well, I'm getting tired so I'll give you a nice little link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Increase_in_terrorism
So, since the war on Iraq, the US has gained 4 major enemies now. Al Quaeda, Iraqi Insurgents, Iran, and...Crap, I can't remember there name, but those Shiite guys. And now the US has given weapons to the insurgents who vow to destroy the Americans and Al Quaeda (f*ck, have I been spelling that right?...Oops, there's no U in Al Qaeda.). Now, this either be a good diplomatic decision, a good military decision, or they could be creating a new Saddam, whatever. Anyways, I believe that this war is just one for profit and control over the middle east, and that US troops should be removed from Iraq. It will surely fall into a state of civil war, but they will survive, and I doubt the presence of US troops will help. Instead there should be more focus on Afghanistan. Also, I believe that we could make peace with the terrorist groups (With the exception of Al Qaeda, as one of there goals is world domination.) and try to make peace. They could even be turned against each other. But perhaps once George Bush is out of the white house we'll have someone who will be able to handle Iraq in a more appropriate fashion. Well, that's my opinion, what's yours?

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

Wow, in the time it took me to write that post no one else commented. Kudos to anyone who reads that wall of text I wrote. And sorry if it was a little incoherent.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'd really hate to be George Bush. As much as many of his policies irk me, and as little as I approve of his manner of doing things, I do have a bit of sympathy for him on the Iraq issue.

Put yourself in his position.

You have intelligence that there are WMDs in Iraq. Now GRANTED this intelligence seems to have been inaccurate, but hindsight is 20/20. No one knew it was wrong at the time. Even John Kerry was all for going into Iraq... at first.

Anyways, back in Bush's shoes. He has this intel, and no less than 2 years prior we had been hit by a terrorist attack. He has a decision to make. And both options turn out to be "damned if you do, probably damned if you don't."

If he does go into Iraq, then there are obvious problems. Demolishing a country's government and then rebuilding it is expensive. On top of that, it adds another front to the "war on terror"- remember, we were (and still are) in Afghanistan. Our all-volunteer military is getting stretched. And there's the issue of once you go in, there's no coming back out. I'll get to that later.

But if he doesn't go into Iraq, and if any of these WMDs get used or there is another terrorist attack, then he has even more problems on his hands... now on the home front. Not only that, but his political career would be toast.

And I can guarantee that either way the Democrats would have hounded him just like they are now.

I'm definitely not pro-Bush, nor am I a Republican. I just see Bush's foreign policy as fork in the road with two equally bad paths to follow. Turned out that one was right and one was wrong, but at the beginning they both looked pretty damn terrible. He just didn't get lucky.

Now why are we STILL in Iraq? That's easy. A lot of the most passionate Bush-haters I know think that we need to be in Iraq now that we're there. Let's face it. We destroyed the country's government. Worse, we're having a hell of a time building a functioning new one. But if we left now, the place would become a power vacuum, a breeding ground for new dictators. It would be like the state Germany was left in during WWI which led to the rise of Hitler. We're stuck there until we can get the place on its feet.

And since we're stuck there, I am of the opinion that the American people might as well get behind it. There's no pulling out now, not without terrible consequences ten to twenty years in the future. We need to do the job and get the hell out, but with a congress full of politicians eager to jump on the bandwagon of legislating against an unpopular (but now absolutely necessary) war, it's not going to get far.

I'm starting to lose faith in the American political system because of all this squabble. The politically uneducated masses just want us to stop spending money there and stop hurting the poor Iraqis. Why do they believe that? Because the nutjob power-hungry politicians are telling them that.

But it's not that simple. The long-term consequences in Iraq will be far worse than the short-term casualties and costs we're currently suffering if we just leave now. One of my best friends is one of the most ardent Bush-haters I know, but at the same time he understands that the war is absolutely necessary at this point. He condemns Bush for getting us into it in the first place, but he understands the necessity for staying until the problem is solved.

As my economics teacher wisely said: "Democracy isn't perfect, it means idiots get to participate in the political system!"

I'm not into calling people idiots for their political beliefs, but sorry: no matter what you think of bush (and I think very little of him), we need to finish the job. Anyone who thinks otherwise has very little understanding of historical precedent.

But now it's more about political power than anything else.

Well, as Thomas Jefferson said, blood must be spilled from the tree of liberty every 200 years or so, and it's about that time.

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

I see, that's a very good point. But are there any candidates in the election who will not pull out of the war in Iraq and will be able to manage fighting it? As far as I know, No. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[spurgistan]

The intelligence didn't really (in it's entirety) say that Saddam was developing WMDs, the cherrypicked intelligence we were shown (Tenet's "slam dunk for war") said we did, when in fact those sources people who didn't want to topple Saddam's regime in Iraq (which is to say, nobody in the Bush administration or their advisers) would normally see as well, pretty goofy (you're saying a expatriate banker with interests in a liberated Iraq is gonna tell you the straight truth? C'mon)

[spurgistan]

I see, that's a very good point. But are there any candidates in the election who will not pull out of the war in Iraq and will be able to manage fighting it? As far as I know, No. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure about the front-line guys, but all the second tier Democrats want an immediate pull-out (that is Richardson, Kucinich - he said this last time, too - and Gravel.

[Jenos Ridan]

because we can never be content unless we're getting on as many people's nerves as possible...

because we are assholes, and have to 'big brother' everyone...

because 51% of america are dumbasses...

because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and they are harboring Al Queda (not sure of the spelling)

because of a theory called The Domino Theory, originally used during the Cold War, which states that if one country goes to 'the bad side' (communism in the Cold War, Al Queda/bad muslim now) all the surrounding countries will fall to it like dominoes.


take your pick...

Ahhh all of those good, however what are your thoughts on the energy struggle, you think that plays a role at all?

Well, the Domino Theory is hard to apply here, as the entire middle east, save for Israel, is overrun by Wahbbist mullahs who see the USA as "the Great Shaitan" and most of the rest of the 'Dar Al Harb" as "lesser satans".

And I think that if Oil wasn't a factor, then we'd be naive in too many ways.

[MeDeFe]

But if we left now, the place would become a power vacuum, a breeding ground for new dictators. It would be like the state Germany was left in during WWI which led to the rise of Hitler. We're stuck there until we can get the place on its feet.

I agree in general, except that Iraq today would be FAR worse off than post-WW1 Germany.

[halim7]

Bush deserves to be thrown in jail !!

[sfhbballnut]

America isn't at war with any counry, there's a war on terrorism in the middle east but as far as a country to country war America isn't in one

There's also our military presence in Iraq, but they're helping to train the new army/police force and supporting the new government, not at war

Not really, they're taking casualties on a daily basis, I'd say that's war.

America hasn't declared war on any particular country, troops are being killed in the middle east, but not by an army from a country, it mostly terrorist and extremists who hate america or just the fact that the troops are there

[sfhbballnut]

Bush deserves to be thrown in jail !!

for what? The president of the United States has the power and the right to start a military action, and just so we're clear congress had to approve of it as well. He took action against a murdureous dictator and terrorist activity in general, where is the crime there?

[Bigfalcon65]

America isn't at war with any counry, there's a war on terrorism in the middle east but as far as a country to country war America isn't in one

There's also our military presence in Iraq, but they're helping to train the new army/police force and supporting the new government, not at war

Not really, they're taking casualties on a daily basis, I'd say that's war.

America hasn't declared war on any particular country, troops are being killed in the middle east, but not by an army from a country, it mostly terrorist and extremists who hate america or just the fact that the troops are there

soory buddy but we declared war on iraq, we havnt declared surrender or victory, we're still in it

[Bigfalcon65]

Bush deserves to be thrown in jail !!

for what? The president of the United States has the power and the right to start a military action, and just so we're clear congress had to approve of it as well. He took action against a murdureous dictator and terrorist activity in general, where is the crime there?

broken glass theroy, he broke and he cant fix it, thus he should be thrown in jail.

[unriggable]

Bush deserves to be thrown in jail !!

for what? The president of the United States has the power and the right to start a military action, and just so we're clear congress had to approve of it as well. He took action against a murdureous dictator and terrorist activity in general, where is the crime there?

We, the undersigned, believe George Bush and Dick Cheney should be prosecuted for the following war crimes:

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.

* Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.
* Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.
* At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.
* George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.

A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing." By invading Iraq, Bush has committed a Crime Against Peace.

2. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.

* Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

The independent Web site IraqBodyCount.org is documenting each Iraqi civilian death, based on reports from at least two mainstream Western media organizations (AP, Reuters, CNN, etc.)

(when I checked it said minimum 66,602 maximum 72910)

3. George Bush and Dick Cheney are ultimately responsible for the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners, which resulted from policies that were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Vice President Cheney himself. These policies were adopted with full knowledge that they could result in war crimes, which persuaded Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to urge Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor.

The photos below depict some of the war crimes involving the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners. These are the "milder" photos - the most horrific photos of torture and rape have only been seen by Congress.

(If I show these pictures I'll get banned)

To punish these crimes - and, of equal importance, to prevent future crimes - we call upon all responsible US and international bodies to indict, convict, and punish George Bush and Dick Cheney for their War Crimes, along with everyone who participated in those crimes.

[sfhbballnut]

Yes we declared war on Iraq and took out the dictatorship there, now the govenrment is friendly to us, thus we are not at war with them anymore, we're a military presense supporting the government and training their armed forces

And I'll say it again, Congress has to approve any military action of the president, so lets punish all those who voted to allow the action against Iraq, and come one, Saddaam gassed his own peole, thousands of people killed at his orders, that needed to be stopped

[unriggable]

Yes we declared war on Iraq and took out the dictatorship there, now the govenrment is friendly to us, thus we are not at war with them anymore, we're a military presense supporting the government and training their armed forces

A country isn't dictated by its government. It's dictated by its people. 78% of Iraqis want the US to leave, and many want it to happen so much that they are attacking us. Sounds like war to me.

[Bigfalcon65]

Yes we declared war on Iraq and took out the dictatorship there, now the govenrment is friendly to us, thus we are not at war with them anymore, we're a military presense supporting the government and training their armed forces

A country isn't dictated by its government. It's dictated by its people. 78% of Iraqis want the US to leave, and many want it to happen so much that they are attacking us. Sounds like war to me.

futhermore there is a religios civil war now, we broke up the only stability that country had, theres no way we can fix it, meanwhile iran and other middle east countries are now all picking sides and preparing for conflict.

[DirtyDishSoap]

because George Bush is an idiot and likes to kiss Tony Blairs ass

other way around...The kissing the ass that is, George Bush is an idiot

[sfhbballnut]

So what do you want done? we're there, we were there in the first place for the right reasons, and we can't just up and leave now

[Bigfalcon65]

because George Bush is an idiot and likes to kiss Tony Blairs ass

other way around...The kissing the ass that is, George Bush is an idiot

there both idiots only george is sucking his fathers dick, any one see a similarity to his fathers motives and his?

[sfhbballnut]

Lets roll back to the Gulf War were we just slapped Saddaam's wrist's about invading Kuwait rather than taking care of the problem, if we had finished the job then we wouldn'd be having this discussion now, but once again spineless politicians

[DirtyDishSoap]

because George Bush is an idiot and likes to kiss Tony Blairs ass

other way around...The kissing the ass that is, George Bush is an idiot

there both idiots only george is sucking his fathers dick, any one see a similarity to his fathers motives and his?

where they both want to invade Iran for oil? yep seen it

[Bigfalcon65]

Lets roll back to the Gulf War were we just slapped Saddaam's wrist's about invading Kuwait rather than taking care of the problem, if we had finished the job then we wouldn'd be having this discussion now, but once again spineless politicians

well its not the first time this has happened, surly you remember the appeasment of germany.

[Bigfalcon65]

because George Bush is an idiot and likes to kiss Tony Blairs ass

other way around...The kissing the ass that is, George Bush is an idiot

there both idiots only george is sucking his fathers dick, any one see a similarity to his fathers motives and his?

where they both want to invade Iran for oil? yep seen it

finaly we agree