Rearden, Terrorism is bad. Very bad. Awful. So why did we invade Iraq?

Because they actively sponsored terrorism!!!
When you fund terrorist, you are supporting it.

I imagine you haven't been living under a rock recently -- so you are aware of the various reasons given back in the day. History will look back and show that the argument so well articulated by Natan Sharansky to be the transcendent reason:

Because a democratic country in the Middle East whose citizens enjoy freedom of conscience and upward economic mobility is anathema to the jihadist's cause.

As they used to say back in 2001-2, "draining the swamp".

Not our job.

Ah! So it's about sponsoring terrorists? There are no greater sponsors of terrorism than the Saudis. No one even comes close. Iraq was not even in the ballpark. Saudis took down the twin towers. A Saudi planned it. The Saudi government funds Wahabist schools and is the regions leading financial sponsor of terrorism. Did we invade Saudi Arabia?

The invasion was clearly NOT about Iraq sponsoring terrorism. So why?

That would have gone over real well 6 years ago when every American was desperate for the government to do something about reducing the draw some Muslims had toward radical jihadism: "Sorry folks, it's not our job."

Oh, you are a Ron Paul guy. Haha. I guess his BS makes sense to you. "Just leave them alone and don't do anything to offend them. They'll be nice."

If you want to read some chapters from Dr Wittes' new book "Freedom's Unsteady March: Democracy Promotion in the Middle East After President Bush", you can download them here:

http://fsi.stanford.edu/events/freedoms_unsteady_march_democracy_promotion_in_the _middle_east_after_president_bush/

She is quite harsh in her criticism of the way the Bush team has bungled their way through this democracy-promotion effort, so you might enjoy the read.

Again, you have a bunch of info but you simply seem to process it incorrectly.

What should be "obvious" is that the "project" you mention is the primary reason for most of what's going on in that hell hole. BTW, "project" is a very novel way of describing an invasion/occupation of a foreign nation. If you lose your day job you might have a future with Team Bush in coming up with goofy and often mis-leading names for various other military "projects."

As for Iraq becoming a "democratic country" I would guess that even the most sincere Iraq war booster would now concede that is about as likely as pigs taking flight.

What should be "sickening" to you is that there was virtually no al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion and now not only is al-Qaeda something that we have forced the Iraqi people to deal with but we have created a reported 2,200,000 Iraqi refugees along with at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians maimed or killed.

Your point about Dahmer is excellent. But as usual you seem incapable of applying it correctly. You might wonder how those 2+ million Iraqi refugees mentioned above and the relatives of the killed or maimed civilians feel about our "project." It may be a wonderful project to those of us to look at it on TV but I would guess that the innocent Iraqi civilians feel the same way about us as Dahmer's victim's families felt about him. So it was a good analogy...you just got the players wrong.

I was not talking about the scum who used the women. I was talking about the hundreds if not thousands of seemingly rational and often well educated suicide bombers from that area. The sad part is that fools in USA actually believe that we can stop the trend with an occupation that is reported to be creating and providing more new recruits for the nut cases who believe in violence.

Come on Moses, you aren't really this stupid are you. Right after 9/11, President Bush said that we would go after countries that sponsor terrorism, and after, how many years of not doing what they said they would do in the Gulf I Cease Fire, we finally stepped up and did something. As I have stated many times before, which has been backed up her by PP members who are serving and even responding from over seas, those who are serrving, and have been there feel that this was not only the right thing to do, but had to be done.

Probably the biggest thing that most people point at per Iraq sponsoring terrorism is the $25K that Saddam would often send to the families of suicide bombers. Is that what you are talking about or are there other big things that Team Bush and our intel has been unable to find?

Please provide (in big red childish letters) a list of the terrorist activities that Iraq and Saddam directed at the USA?

You misstate his position.

Why won't any of you answer the question?

Why did we invade Iraq.? Hussein was a two-bit player in supporting terrorism. He offered very limited support of groups working to destabilize Turkey. He supported the Mujahedeen after we stopped supporting them and he supported Abu Nidal. So did Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and every other Muslim nation in the area. Hussein was a secular leader. It would have been impossible for him to retain power without supporting populist Muslim groups.

So why did we invade Iraq?

Bush says it's because Hussein ignored the U.N. sanctions, but that can't be the reason. Israel has ignored more than 60 United Nations sanctions. Turkey, Morocco and even mighty Armenia have ignored U.N. Sanctions. Did we invade Israel and I missed it?

Again, why did we invade Iraq?

Was it to establish a democracy in the Middle East? I hope not. Every American should know we don't have the right to forcibly impose a system of government on a sovereign nation.

So why did we invade Iraq?

Again, you miss the point. No one says that the radical nut cases in that area will never attempt to attack our nation any more that we can say that the second biggest terrorist attack inside the USA (by an American) will not be repeated. But the fact of the matter is that we are not even remotely diminishing either threat by having hundreds of thousands of our troops in an Arab/Muslim nation. How many military troops would you allow in the USA before you would take action against the pricks?My number would be about 20.

If we did not have our footprint all over the damn Middle East we might be able to take actions when there was a true threat. As it is now we have a firm grip on the moral lowground and we most likely would be hesitant to take proper action even for good reasons.

Or to put it another way that you might be able to understand: We have THE most powerful military on the planet. But our inane policy or "project" as you put it, does not allow us to use it. If we would mostly get our ass out of that useless sand pit
we could then inform any real and true threat that if they fuk with us it will not be with a half-ass effort that takes 6 years and a Blackwater fiasco to try to handle. We could tell them that it will be lights out if they do present any threat to our nation.

As it has been proved, our current policy does not allow us to act that way. What exactly about this is unclear to you?

I have to put things in big red letters so idiot will see them, and clearly, you either missed, ignored or just plain forgot about this. And when President Bush declare war on Terror, he was goining after all, not just those who directly attacted the USA, of course, you ignored that too:rolleyes:
BTW, Team Bush, but in typical liberal form, you again igore and stick your head up your ASS, Hitler would have loved if America was made up of the liberals we are burdened with today durring W.W.II, Joe Kennedy wouldn't have been fired.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1201931472.jpg

Iraq had already attacked (unprovoked) another country, and was making threats, poke a dog long enough, you get bit.

Thank you for expressing so eloquently what I was unable to do. I appreciate it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1201931779.jpg

You don`t fight terrorism by invading a country, that was a totally stupid idea to start with.
You fight terrorism by listening to intelligence reports. 9/11 could have been prevented if Bush and his cronies had listened to the warnings...

But the reason Iraq was invaded is very simple: the USA is controlled by weapons and oil industry. They are the ones who put Bush in power. The weapons and oil industries have been doing very well since the Iraq invasion.

Aurel

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1201931911.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1201932036.jpg

If, after almost 6 years, you haven't taken the time to learn, or even stumbled across, the reasons, let me know. I'll recommend some books or articles for you to read so you can catch up.


Ouch. I would expect a learned man to understand the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 resolutions. Do some homework and get back to us. While you're in there, check out some of the real hum-dinger Chapter 6 resolutions the Muslim countries have created to bash the Zionist entity. It makes you wonder why the UN is such a joke.

So what's your final answer...did we invade Iraq/Saddam because:

1. Of UN sanctions.
2. Because he was a threat to his neighbors.
3. Because he wanted nukes.
4. Because we want to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here.
5. Because he attacked other countries.
6. Because all the terrorists were in Iraq.
7. Because we wanted to install democracy.
8. And this is probably the difficult one for you...because he was a threat to the USA?

You stupidly and incorrectly assume that I'm a liberal and bring up irrelevant crap about Hitler and WW Two. Anyone who compares Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and WW Two is probably so fuking stupid that they think that West Bend is a curve. But the fact of the matter is that you appear to be a stupid piece of Bush loving ***** who truly has his head up his ass and cannot properly process info and connect the dots.

I can easily and freely criticize any Dem or liberal when they are fuked up because I have no agenda. But dip*****s that do have an agenda have done far more harm to our nation over the past 6 years than any of the goofball libs. Live with it my slow thinking friend.

Now, try even bigger red letters. Actually, the middle school kids would probably use multiple colors or stripes. Idiot!

Wow, along with big red letters you excel at cut & paste. Congrats.;)

Do you know the difference between verbose and verbiage?

Try actually saying something and see how that works out. If you have difficulty, please advise and assistance will be forthcoming. SmileWavy