PoliticsForum.Com

The reasons behind going into Iraq were many.

1. To weaken the MUSLIM blocks

2. To increase American influence in the region.

3. To protect oil interests (and nothing wrong with that. I don't want to pay $5 per gallon).

4. To help Israel's security and position.

5. To help democratize those savages in the area.

6. To BE responsible in a world full of evils and irresponsible nations. Someone has to do the right thing no matter how it may look to those with other agendas.

7. To eliminate an evil tyrant of whom we had no longer any use for.

8. To revenge Kuwait.

9. To make friends with powerful figures with moderate/liberal inclinations.

I am sure there are a few more but this should give you an idea.


I like Bush as far as his job performance and his vision for the world and Middle east and I hope he pulls the US out of the UN as I think he will after he gets re-ellected, or at the very least will weaken the Un even more (if that were possible).

As far as his xtian side, that is sad and pathetic but am not worried because we have a supremen court who will not allow fundy laws to be passed/survive.

On the Democratic side, the only dem worth voting for is Lieberman. All the rest are a bunch of communists.

ex-idaho

I think this may be the most naive post I have ever read.

So far it appears to have strengthened the Muslim groups by giving them an excellent rallying cry and great PR to recruit. While US military recruitment drops off the map the Muslim Fundies are raking them in like never before.

I honestly don't think we could have any greater influence in the region. We had troops stationed in the most holy nation in the ME. We have troops stationed in Afganistan, we are pretty tight with Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. If anything the invasion of Iraq put more distance between the US and the people of the ME. It did however give us a strategic advantage in the region at least for the time being. We will see what happens when we allow the Iraqis to vote on the continued presence of US forces.

And just how far you willing to take this? Are you willing to invade Venezula? Whether you think its a good idea or not, it is illegal according to international law to invade a country for economic reasons.

Pray tell how this improved Isreals security situation? Saddam was no threat to Isreal. He had no munitions that were capable of striking Isreal. I guess you could point to the claim that Saddam was paying off the families of the suicide bombers but there is no evidence outside of Saddams assertions that this was actually taking place. Even if it is true, do then support invading Saudi Arabia for the same reason?

It is highly debatable that this was the right thing to do. No one is going to mourn the loss of Saddam but did we have a right to overthrow him? Afterall, Iraq was a soverign nation with full protections there of.

Key part of that sentence whom we had no longer any use for . He was just fine raping, killing and doing EVIL as long as he was doing it for us.

Do you mean avenge Kuwait? If so thats just stupid. Avenge what? We already decimated his country and subjected them to 11 years of sanctions killing millions of Iraqis and destroying his ability to defend himself. What was there left to avenge?

Please give us some examples of some of the powerful moderate/liberal figures that are now our buds.

The Bush foriegn policy has only made the world more dangerous than it was before. He has single handedly returned us to a state of Cold War level anxiety and squnadered good will towards the US that was felt world wide. His policy of pre-emption is dangerous and sets a deadly precident.

Contrary to your wishes Bush will not pull us out of the UN if he is reelected. In fact Bush will soon find himself speaking in front of the UN attempting to smooth over all the ill feelings he stirred up in his push for war. Why you ask will he do this. Simple, we can't afford to rebuild Iraq and maintain his horrendous tax cuts. He will be forced to eat crow just to keep the economy from sinking even further and to appear like a leader during election season.

Zar

I second that. Pretty weak. I am especially bothered by such pathological combinations as "getting rid of an evil tyrant we had no more use for" and "I don't want to pay $5 per gallon" with somebody has to do the "right" thing regardless of people with other "agendas". Mixing that much self-righteous, self-congratulatory piety with so much craven materialistic nihilism could cause a tear in the space-time contunuum.

This is also a good one, which shows the level of mental development the poster has attained:

A supremen [sic] court? Yes, rest assured, Superman will come to our rescue.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Hmm at least this one supposes some real politik elements.

Considering some other elements beyond weak and feeble mentioning of democracy and liberty spread by the neocon administration.

There are varied degrees of relevance but it recognises some realistic policies as probable causes. Now that this may not be evening news explanation due to its moral ambiguity is a different matter but Politicsforum.com presents some real consideration. Also varied in terms of many sources reflecting complicated foreign policy thinking.

I am not discussing his varied relevancy of arguments which are of course are open to discussion adn subject to interpretation. I am merely stating that in fact being more reflective of real motivation than the official party line of "bringing down a dictatorship and spreading democracy".

B34RZ0R

**"I like Bush as far as his job performance and his vision for the world and Middle east and I hope he pulls the US out of the UN"**

sorry Dude(or Dudet)
Cant accept anyone who furthers the idea that the US is not a part of the global whole and as such we need to work

WITH

NOT AGAINST our neighboors and fellow peoples of the GLOBE!

That shit is just ridiculous- pulling us out of the UN.
I guess if you like to live in an Orwellian wet dream where big brother is watching and you can go to jail for crimethinc - cool keep on supporting this jackass.

Oh yeah and if we didn't go to Iraq you would not have to pay $5.00 a gallon for gas - how did you come up with that one?

BC

conkermaniac

All we've done is make them hate us even more.

No, you've got it all wrong. The question is why they need an American influence at all?

I suppose it's also OK if North Korea nukes the US because they need more farming land.

Why should we be helping Israel any more than Palestine? They've already done a fine job of slaughtering thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. Oh, and by the way, what has this got to do with the war?

I was surprised that ex-idaho didn't respond to this racist claim. But I guess that since you listen to Ann Coulter, you're probably end up being a racist anyway. Do you, by any chance, belong to the KKK?

Let's start with the Congo, North Korea, and Somalia, not Iraq. There are countries with civilians that are far worse off than Iraq.

I think ex-idaho did a good job with this one.

We've already gotten our revenge...in the Gulf War.

And who exactly would that be? We're already friends with Turkey. And we're also friends with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, even though they're not exactly moderate. The only moderate Arab leader that we didn't make friends with was Saddam Hussein. (He's moderate in the sense that he didn't require many of the harsh demands of Islam.) Now he's gone, a bunch of Shi'ite fundamentalists are going to take over the country and impose an Islamic state in Iraq. I fail to see how that's better for the nation, and most importantly, how that's better for our relationship with "powerful figures with moderate/liberal inclinations".

Take that Coulter book of yours and throw it down the toilet. And don't forget to flush. It's obviously perverted your mind in a way I never thought possible before.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Actually point #8 To revenge Kuwait.

Umm why would we need to revenge it? I am failing to see why - could you explain further? Iraq had no declaration of war with USA or at least they did not attack USA at all. Maybe they were in fact just there to "5. To help democratize those savages in the area."?

After all US loved Saddam up to that point...

Pantera

Hi there Solomon! Going for a record number of bannings? And do you still wear that red bow tie?

New members, and those with short memories, might like to read Solomon's unique views on beauty treatment on this archive thread. Warning: do not drink milk while reading this thread as it contains possibly the funniest line ever posted, by JL.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

This worked out great--especially in Iraq, where a theocracy is taking shape!
Just what the Muslims wanted!
10,000+ dead so your gas prices won't increase to anything near what they pay in Europe? POOR BABY.
What we Saddam threatening them with? 20km range missiles?
Yes, anyone who isn't White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and instead is one of those filthy, rag-headed dune coon muslims is a savage. Oh, and it's worked real well so far, with a Shi'ite cleric telling his congregation to wear burial shrouds as a symbol they will die for the cause of ridding the area of the US.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, where we have made public commitments to over a year ago, law and order does not exist anywhere but for a shade within Kabul. The country is run by the Taliban and a bunch of warlords, most of whom oppose the Karzai (sp?) government. Black Tar heroin is once again being produced in Afghanistan after a five or so years of total non-production due to the Taliban's influence. The president didn't even bother budgeting a single penny to help them at all.
In Congo, villages are being massacred, children are being kidnapped and forced to fight as soldiers or work as prostitues.
China still murders memebers of religious sects and political enemies en masse. We give them most favored trade status.
But we DID have use for him--just one more, to make the Shrub look better for five minutes.
That happened more than a decade ago, bitch.
This worked REAL good.
That this war had no good reasons that actually worked at all? Yup.
Gee, how swell. The UN is pretty much the only thing that kept the USSR and the US from nuking the crap out of each other, the only means of international enforcement, etc. Good thing, pulling out.

Oh, and as for his middle east vision: WHAT FUCKING VISION? He's alienated the region, set the stage for another theocracy, is setting us up for a lengthy occupation of a hostile (or soon to be hostile) people--GOOD JOB.
No, Scalia and Rhenquist NEVER EVER EVER EVER use the bible to make THEIR decisions. NOT THEM.
Other than they aren't, and Lieberman is really a Republican and not worth voting for, you actually said something true.

they aren't communists--they aren't advocating the overthrow of the corporate masters and the factories to be owned by the workers. That would be commie. They isn't commie.

lunachick

You're too kind, ex-idaho. I would've said idiot assholish posts I've ever read.


Hey, Pantera - are you serious - this is the guy with the red bow tie? Hahahaah. Too funny.