BF2S Forums Serious question (the logic of why America invades a country)

Turquoise wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people

And invading Iraq (a country that had nothing to to do with 9/11) made us safer somehow?

Invading Afghanistan was justified.  Invading Iraq was just stupid.

This is the second time on this page alone that an incorrect connection between 9/11 and Iraq has been made. This level of ignorance regarding the facts available to us is worrying, it suggests it might be easier than I thought to mount a similar campaign against someone like Iran.

Turquoise wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people

And invading Iraq (a country that had nothing to to do with 9/11) made us safer somehow?

Invading Afghanistan was justified.  Invading Iraq was just stupid.

you would rather have just left a crazy bastard who killed, raped, and did who knows what else to his own people in power?

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

This is not exactly true...there are quite a few examples of what Saddam and its government were involved with in messing with America..plots, attempts, logistics, planning etc. There was a post just recently on here that showed many examples of this. I wish i could find it. The exact links, whether it was Al-queda or not is the question, but there is no question that Iraq was working with groups. I hope someone can find that post and the relevant examples and post it here.

Okay, well find the links and I'll retract if I have to but Anything I've read or studied on the subject suggests Saddam's iron grip on the nation of Iraq kept out extremist groups like Al Qaeda and I've never seen anything suggesting Iraq or Saddam contributed in any way to 9/11.

He didnt let groups INTO his country but he did work with quite a few of them to cause havoc where he could to American interests. There were even assassination plots against Bush Sr. that were backed by elements of the Iraqi government including Saddam. There is a lot of info about this. He may not have allowed Al-queda and similar groups to train and live IN Iraq but he did interact with them. There were meetings (in and outside of Iraq) involving Iraqi elements and terrorists groups. This is well documented. Im not a guy who sits on the net searching for links, posts or whatever. I know what I know, i do read a lot from many different sources on both sides of the debate, but its pretty common knowledge that there was involvement in many things, outside of 911, by Iraqi elements all the way to the top. Now, I will agree that there wasnt a direct connection with Al-queada and Iraq concerning the 911 attacks, but there were plenty of reasons and actions that led to that war with Iraq. Was it a mistake....thats for the future to decide.

Or perhaps...  it was a mistake to back Saddam as a dictator in the first place.  Perhaps, it was a mistake to get involved in the Iran-Iraq War.  Perhaps, we should mind our own fucking business from here out.

sgtpompous wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people

And invading Iraq (a country that had nothing to to do with 9/11) made us safer somehow?

Invading Afghanistan was justified.  Invading Iraq was just stupid.

you would rather have just left a crazy bastard who killed, raped, and did who knows what else to his own people in power?

The American government did that with Saddam from the get go.  We helped put him into power.  We didn't give two shits about what he was doing to the Kurds in the 80s.  We sold him WMDs as late as 1988.  Rumsfeld was even there.

This has absolutely nothing to do with our safety or morality.  This is purely economics.

the entire world sold Saddam the ingredients for WMD's  more so from europe.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

...but the people who talk about dollar hegemony in the oil trade know what's going on....

Yes we forced Saddam to ignore 14 years of UN resolution and write checks to Palestinians terrorist to protect the dollar.

No, what we did was choose to remove him when he stopped trading with our dollar.

He helped seal his fate on many levels, not only economic. If we cared so much about Iraqi trade we wouldn't have spent years imposing sanction on them.

Fen321 wrote:

If i could give you an award for this one honestly I would fly out to where you live and hand it to you personally because god damn you've taken the cake with that one.

you are willing to go to iraq just to give someone an award?
j/k



cannon, stay safe brother.

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people

And invading Iraq (a country that had nothing to to do with 9/11) made us safer somehow?

Invading Afghanistan was justified.  Invading Iraq was just stupid.

This is the second time on this page alone that an incorrect connection between 9/11 and Iraq has been made. This level of ignorance regarding the facts available to us is worrying, it suggests it might be easier than I thought to mount a similar campaign against someone like Iran.

are you in denial or are you just an idiot? there are terrorists in iraq... the same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. how is that an incorrect connection, oh wise one?

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

No, what we did was choose to remove him when he stopped trading with our dollar.

He helped seal his fate on many levels, not only economic. If we cared so much about Iraqi trade we wouldn't have spent years imposing sanction on them.

Really now?  So, the fact that the Democrats lobbied for removing Saddam in the late 90s while the Republicans called it out as bullshit doesn't make you wonder why both sides switched positions when Bush started lobbying for war with Iraq?

If it was a bullshit cause in the late 90s, it was still a bullshit cause in 2003.  The only difference is which political party supported the invasion, and which didn't.

I have a feeling you'd be demanding Bush be impeached if he was a Democrat who invaded Iraq for false pretenses.

The world and our foreign policy changed somewhere in between if you didn't notice the obvious.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

He helped seal his fate on many levels, not only economic. If we cared so much about Iraqi trade we wouldn't have spent years imposing sanction on them.

Really now?  So, the fact that the Democrats lobbied for removing Saddam in the late 90s while the Republicans called it out as bullshit doesn't make you wonder why both sides switched positions when Bush started lobbying for war with Iraq?

If it was a bullshit cause in the late 90s, it was still a bullshit cause in 2003.  The only difference is which political party supported the invasion, and which didn't.

I have a feeling you'd be demanding Bush be impeached if he was a Democrat who invaded Iraq for false pretenses.

The world and our foreign policy changed somewhere in between if you didn't notice the obvious.

Oh... I get it...  so 9/11 changed things even though we had already dealt with one Trade Center bombing before.

Well, I guess that means one of 2 things:

1) The Republicans were calling the invasion of Iraq bullshit in the late 90s, but they were the ones full of shit.

2) A war is only justified when a Republican president claims it.

Now, which do you think is true?

Turquoise wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Okay, well find the links and I'll retract if I have to but Anything I've read or studied on the subject suggests Saddam's iron grip on the nation of Iraq kept out extremist groups like Al Qaeda and I've never seen anything suggesting Iraq or Saddam contributed in any way to 9/11.

He didnt let groups INTO his country but he did work with quite a few of them to cause havoc where he could to American interests. There were even assassination plots against Bush Sr. that were backed by elements of the Iraqi government including Saddam. There is a lot of info about this. He may not have allowed Al-queda and similar groups to train and live IN Iraq but he did interact with them. There were meetings (in and outside of Iraq) involving Iraqi elements and terrorists groups. This is well documented. Im not a guy who sits on the net searching for links, posts or whatever. I know what I know, i do read a lot from many different sources on both sides of the debate, but its pretty common knowledge that there was involvement in many things, outside of 911, by Iraqi elements all the way to the top. Now, I will agree that there wasnt a direct connection with Al-queada and Iraq concerning the 911 attacks, but there were plenty of reasons and actions that led to that war with Iraq. Was it a mistake....thats for the future to decide.

Or perhaps...  it was a mistake to back Saddam as a dictator in the first place.  Perhaps, it was a mistake to get involved in the Iran-Iraq War.  Perhaps, we should mind our own fucking business from here out.

You have to take "the times" that past things happened or put them in context. Would ANYONE back in that time, when we were at odds against Iran over the kidnappings and other incidences, have been against supporting Iraq in a war against Iran.....of course not. Everyone was for supporting Iraq against Iran and who in the hell would have known it would bite us in the ass later. Secondly, no way could we ever mind our own business because there are too many countries, leaders with their hands out asking for this or that.

When something goes wrong, who do they run to and ask for help. Would it have been okay to ignore Kosovo or to ignore Germany, or would it have been okay to ignore Kuwait and mind our own business? Soon, something will need to be done about Darfur and guess who is going to be called upon. Who will be the majority army, who will sacrifice more of its young men and women more than anyone else...the United States. As one of richest countries and advanced militaries, we will USUALLY be the ones that have to respond whether its a natural disaster or militarily. Sometimes we may not like it...but its the position America is forced to deal with sometimes.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Really now?  So, the fact that the Democrats lobbied for removing Saddam in the late 90s while the Republicans called it out as bullshit doesn't make you wonder why both sides switched positions when Bush started lobbying for war with Iraq?

If it was a bullshit cause in the late 90s, it was still a bullshit cause in 2003.  The only difference is which political party supported the invasion, and which didn't.

I have a feeling you'd be demanding Bush be impeached if he was a Democrat who invaded Iraq for false pretenses.

The world and our foreign policy changed somewhere in between if you didn't notice the obvious.

Oh... I get it...  so 9/11 changed things even though we had already dealt with one Trade Center bombing before.

Well, I guess that means one of 2 things:

1) The Republicans were calling the invasion of Iraq bullshit in the late 90s, but they were the ones full of shit.

2) A war is only justified when a Republican president claims it.

Now, which do you think is true?

lol.. you really think the two events are comparable. Please cite your sources that say the majority of the GOP were calling a war BS in the late 90's. As far as I can remember they brought war to Saddam not once but twice.

The first one must have been because of "the dollar trade" also.

Braddock wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Braddock wrote:

LOL

Why didn't the US invade Saudi Arabia? That's where most of the 9/11 attackers were from ...Oh I forgot, they're the good guys because the US Government says they are. Iraq had no strong Al Qaeda presence until the US reduced the country to a free for all so what's your point? As Turquoise stated why not go after Pakistan ...or SAUDI ARABIA?

cough up the cash for it, because i'm pretty sure we dont have it. i'm also pretty sure that none of you remember that the war ended a while ago when major combat was declared over. we are basically the police force over ther now because the iraqis cant handle it themselves yet, we still have guys in germany wanna pull out of there too?

'Victory in Iraq goes into its fourth year'

So the war is over when you topple a few statues and can go for a swim in the big man's pool? ...not nowadays, the Iraqi's are kicking US forces and each others' asses on a daily basis over there and it sure looks like warfare on the news. The 'victory' you speak of was the beginning of the battle for Iraq, THIS is the war ...and it will most likely rage long after the US have withdrawn.

BTW your counter argument didn't address the fact that myself and Turquoise pointed out: The US invasion is what allowed Al Qaeda to set up strong positions in Iraq, how can you use it as a justification of the war when it itself is a byproduct of the war?

maybe because they were already there before we ever went in? i thought that was common knowledge, sorry, you dont remember the terrorist training camps? one of the reasons we werent able to make a bigger dent than we have so far are the rules of engagement, the things that make it impossible to fight a war, and the things the terrorists dont give a flying fuck about