Would you of invaded Iraq w/ what you know now?

[4dmin]

Would you of invaded Iraq w/ what you know now?

I'm not talking your personal stance on if you like/dislike Saddam. Would you of invaded Iraq over 9/11 versus spending resources on catching Osama in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

[1439/2000]

For the record I didn't invade shit.

Yeah, still do it if not for anything but saying "Threaten America enough and we will fucking bring democracy to your country"

That'll keep those radical muslims at bay.

[blacknightteg]

nope

[BanginJimmy]

This is no differnt than saying "Would you have attacked Germany in 1939 if you knew about the concentration camps?".

You cant use hindsight to speak for or against a decision based on speculation.

[4dmin]

For the record I didn't invade shit.

Yeah, still do it if not for anything but saying "Threaten America enough and we will fucking bring democracy to your country"

That'll keep those radical muslims at bay.

shit i wish they would of just dropped a single bomb like japan... it would of cost quite a bit less plus sent the perfect message "democracy or GTFO" :lmfao:

[BobbyFresco]

Nope. Too many innocent and naive young and old, men and women, lost their lives for something that is nothing more than a modern day colonization attempt.

[4dmin]

This is no differnt than saying "Would you have attacked Germany in 1939 if you knew about the concentration camps?".

You cant use hindsight to speak for or against a decision based on speculation.

either way you want to look at its a yes/no question. many people feel we are fighting for our freedom and we are justified to be there b/c 9/11 was in part due to iraq. i want to see who truly believes this.

[BKgen®]

hell no. I would, however, send jack bauer into Afghanistan.

[CobraClone]

either way you want to look at its a yes/no question. many people feel we are fighting for our freedom and we are justified to be there b/c 9/11 was in part due to iraq. i want to see who truly believes this.

It's not that cut and dry. Therefore the answer cannot be either.

[4dmin]

It's not that cut and dry. Therefore the answer cannot be either.

how is it not cut and dry? yes or no - you know lots about the current success/failure w/ our invasion so either you would or wouldn't

[CobraClone]

Yes I would, but it could/should have been done differently.

[4dmin]

+50 for answering

[CobraClone]

I should also say, I am not a Bush nutswinger. I do not agree with alot of what he has done, especially lately. But, again, he was a much better choice than Al Gore.

[Spektrewing386]

What really bothers me about Iraq is the lieing.

The whole Iraq thing would have been a different story if it was "to stop the murders the Bathe Party is commiting against the Iraqi and Kurdish people". That is not why we went into Iraq, its what we tell ourselves now to make us feel better. The whole situation would be accepted more if thats the reason we did it.

"We invaded because of WMDs." Yet again, thats not the reason we went into Iraq. That is the offical reason we did it and thats what the government broadcasted its intentions were. But that is a lie. Truth is that a few high government officals knew there was no WMDs and intelligence community knew there was no WMDs. There was nothing the intelligence community could do though against Cheney and such.

The idea to totally invade and take over Iraq has been brewing for over a decade since 2001.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[1439/2000]

The idea to totally invade and take over Iraq has been brewing for over a decade since 2001.


This part, this right here just blows my whole damn mind.

[BanginJimmy]

The idea to totally invade and take over Iraq has been brewing for over a decade since 2001.


Did I fall asleep in 2008 and wake up in 2012?

[Vteckidd]

well a couple of things

We DID NOT INVADE IRAQ OVER 9/11
-People that say this must not have paid ANY ATTENTION to what happened when we went into Iraq. We invaded iraq BECAUSE OF 12 YEARS OF DEFIANCE AGAINST THE UN, MASS GENOCIDE CARRIED OUT BY HUSSEIN AND HIS SONS, Hussein HARBORING TERRORISTS and extending them an invitation to find safe haven within his borders, among other things.

This notion that we went after him solely because of 9-11 is FALSE.

Would we have gone in WITHOUT 9-11, ill be honest and say prob not. 9-11 did help speed us along because IF YOU REMEMBER, we were bombed in clintons era (Uss Cole, Saudi Embassy), then we had 9-11, then the anthrax terrorism. Without 9-11 i believe we would have been hard on Saddam but we prob wouldnt have invaded him. But who really knows.

Look ive said this 102391039203 times, 9-11 happened and we realized we were VULNERABLE. BUSH HAD TO ACT. So what did he do? he bombed the taliban with air strikes for weeks/months


Bombers operating at high altitudes well out of range of anti-aircraft fire bombed the al-Qaeda training camps and Taliban air defenses. During the initial build-up preceding the actual attack, there had been speculation in the media that the Taliban might try to use U.S.-built Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that were the bane of Soviet helicopters during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. If any of these missiles existed at the time of the air campaign, they were never used and the U.S. did not lose any aircraft to enemy fire. Beyond that, the Taliban had little to offer in the way of anti-aircraft weaponry, relying mostly on left-over arms and weapons from the Soviet invasion. U.S. aircraft, including Apache helicopter gunships, operated with impunity throughout the campaign.

The strikes initially focused on the area in and around the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Within a few days, most Taliban training sites were severely damaged and the Taliban's air defenses were destroyed. The campaign then focused on command, control, and communication targets which weakened the ability of the Taliban forces to communicate. However, the line facing the Afghan Northern Alliance held, and no tangible battlefield successes had yet occurred on that front. Two weeks into the campaign, the Northern Alliance demanded the air campaign focus more on the front lines. As the war dragged on civilian casualties also began to mount in the affected areas. Meanwhile, thousands of Pashtun militiamen from Pakistan poured into the country, reinforcing the Taliban against the U.S. led forces.

The next stage of the campaign began with carrier based F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers hitting Taliban vehicles in pinpoint strikes, while other U.S. planes began cluster bombing Taliban defenses. For the first time in years, Northern Alliance commanders finally began to see the serious results that they had long hoped for on the front lines. The Taliban support structure began to erode under the pressure of the air-strikes. U.S. Special Forces then launched an audacious raid deep into the Taliban's heartland of Kandahar, even striking one of Mullah Omar's compounds.[citation needed]

At the beginning of November, the Taliban front lines were bombed with 15,000-pound daisy cutter bombs, and by AC-130 gunships. The Taliban fighters had no previous experience with American firepower, and often even stood on top of bare ridgelines where Special Forces could easily spot them and call in close air support. By November 2, Taliban frontal positions were decimated, and a Northern Alliance march on Kabul seemed possible for the first time. Foreign fighters from al-Qaeda took over security in the Afghan cities, demonstrating the instability of the Taliban regime. Meanwhile, the Northern Alliance and their CIA/Special Forces advisors planned the next stage of their offensive. Northern Alliance troops would seize Mazari Sharif, thereby cutting off Taliban supply lines and enabling the flow of equipment from the countries to the north, followed by an attack on Kabul itself.

We were successfull in removing the taliban, dispersing the Al Qaeda Networks, and installing a "democratic" type government. Our job was done. Also, if you remember the remnants of Al-Queda fled to the caves and hills bordering pakistan. We destroyed their infrastructure, their means to communicate, etc. How many Al Qaeda tapes have we seen now? in the last 4 years? almost NONE.

Afghanistan had no army, no military, they had nothing. We disposed of them quickly and we have continued to maintain troops in that region since 2001.

At the time we still had no idea where Bin Laden was, and i still dont think we do. 4 presidents havent been able to find him (with the exception of Clinton and he passed on taking him out).

I guess the question is do you really think if we had sent 500,000 troops to Afghanistan, would anything have changed from where we are now. prob not. And all the Military advisors say if we had , Iraq would have been more powerfull, and most of the Terrorists would have fleed to wihin saddams borders and we would be at a much greater disadvantage now.

you also have to look at the BIG PICTURE. The war is WORKING, its not in the media anymore because there is nothing to report but ALMOST total victory. Violence is down, streets are open, attacks are way down, etc. Sectarian violence is almost non-existant anymore, etc.

The goal with IRaq was NOT RETALIATION for 9-11. It was a statement made by Bush that if you think you can get away with pushing the USA around, we arent going to take it anymore. It was called THE WAR ON TERRORISM, not the war for 9-11.

Iraq was ripe for the taking, and we had good reason to go in. If we establish a democratic nation in IRAQ and a long future ally, think about how strategic that is in that region. IRANs people are wanting change (the young people). Think how its going to change their minds when they see IRAQ in 10 years bustling with economic prosperity. It was our only hope of getting the more educated people to look past the "kill the infidels" and see, hey, maybe western life isnt so bad.

Iraq was about taking out a terrible, terrorist harboring , USA hating, UN DEfying dictator, and a man that was bent on aquiring WMDs and possibly a nuke. Much like Iran.

For those reasons, we took him out. We are SAFER because of it whether you want to believe it or not.

/sermon

[Spektrewing386]

Did I fall asleep in 2008 and wake up in 2012?

ok to make the statement more direct.... ill rephrase it:
"its been brewing since the early 90s"


The reason we went into Iraq was to guard US interests... not for democracy, not for terrorists, and definitley not for WMDs. Saddam was not harboring terrorists. If he knew there was terrorists in his country he would have killed them already because they would be a threat to his power. Saddam was clinicly paranoid and his paranoia would not allow it.

[alpine_aw11]

Nope. Too much time and money wasted. Had we not gone into Iraq OUR country would be much better off than it is, and I don't give a shit what anyone says because imo that's what matters. Saddam in power>the USA in shambles.

[BanginJimmy]

ok to make the statement more direct.... ill rephrase it:
"its been brewing since the early 90s"

Well the UN has proven to be a complete failure. The US could save a few billion a year in dues and ahve a ncie pience of property in Manhattan to sell if we kicked them out.
More on point though, Iraq had been ignoring UN resolutions for a decade and we were justified in removing Sadaam 8 years before we did. The problem was that the security council had 4 permanent members who played a alrge role and profitted heavily from oil for food. These were also countriens that sold them weapons in violation of their own resolutions.




The reason we went into Iraq was to guard US interests... not for democracy, not for terrorists, and definitley not for WMDs. Saddam was not harboring terrorists. If he knew there was terrorists in his country he would have killed them already because they would be a threat to his power. Saddam was clinicly paranoid and his paranoia would not allow it.

I agree here. It was in the US's intrest to put someone friendly in Iraq to help secure oil at a reasonable price while at the same time creating a buffer between Iran and the Kingdom.

Terrorists did not operate or seek sanctuary in Iraq, but they did receive massive amounts of funding from Iraq. These were not groups that were anti american though. These were groups that operated out of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria and attacked Israel.

[BanginJimmy]

Nope. Too much time and money wasted. Had we not gone into Iraq OUR country would be much better off than it is, and I don't give a shit what anyone says because imo that's what matters. Saddam in power>the USA in shambles.

The economic problems didnt start until the collapse of the housing market thress years later though so I dont think they are correlated. Go back through each phase of the economic crisis and you will end up with a housing bubble bursting. Then the foreclosures, then the credit crunch, then the inability for corporations to get credit, then the eventual layoffs. To make matters worse we had the cleanup from Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, skyrocketing gas prices. The list goes on and on, but the first thing to happen was the housing bubble bursting.

[ultm8mind]

Honestly, what do most of you know now more than you did then? Who's been over there? Yeah me, but besides me.......

[4dmin]

Honestly, what do most of you know now more than you did then? Who's been over there? Yeah me, but besides me.......

many of us know were we lied to to get there. if we were in the same position now to invade iraq specially since osama has still yet to be caught i would say bush would not be able to get the support to push us into iraq.

[BanginJimmy]

many of us know were we lied to to get there. if we were in the same position now to invade iraq specially since osama has still yet to be caught i would say bush would not be able to get the support to push us into iraq.


I'm still calling this a bogus concept. You cannot use hindsight as a tool for making this decision. If you look at only what was presented at the time, I will assure you that most people would have still voted to go.

[Vteckidd]

80+% of congress INCLUDING DEMOCRATS voted to go into Iraq.

Suprising how that number gets forgotten. And dont tell me it was because we were "lied" to.

[§treet_§peed]

i would of went right after 911. instead of saying we are looking for weapons of mass destruction. blah blah fuckin blah. surprise is the key

[§treet_§peed]

on second thought iraq would be a crater if i were president..:D

[Spektrewing386]

Well the UN has proven to be a complete failure. The US could save a few billion a year in dues and ahve a ncie pience of property in Manhattan to sell if we kicked them out.
More on point though, Iraq had been ignoring UN resolutions for a decade and we were justified in removing Sadaam 8 years before we did. The problem was that the security council had 4 permanent members who played a alrge role and profitted heavily from oil for food. These were also countriens that sold them weapons in violation of their own resolutions.





I agree here. It was in the US's intrest to put someone friendly in Iraq to help secure oil at a reasonable price while at the same time creating a buffer between Iran and the Kingdom.

Terrorists did not operate or seek sanctuary in Iraq, but they did receive massive amounts of funding from Iraq. These were not groups that were anti american though. These were groups that operated out of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria and attacked Israel.


im just stating the facts. I honesty DONT agree that we should invade to protect US interests. And the "Kingdom"??? are you talking about Israel?
Honestly, Gaza and the West Bank should be offically be the seperate nation of Palestine. Technically it is not its own nation currently. The United States and Israel doesn't even recognized the State of Palestine. Palestine has declared independance and SHOULD become a seperate nation with East Jerusalem as its capitol. For some reason the countries in the sphere of influence of the United States recognizes Kosovo, but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Palestine.

[4dmin]

80+% of congress INCLUDING DEMOCRATS voted to go into Iraq.

Suprising how that number gets forgotten. And dont tell me it was because we were "lied" to.

Bush got over whelming support b/c of FEAR and FALSE INTELLIGENCE; which led to us going to Iraq on lies. If this is untrue why did so many jump ship w/ in his own administration and where are the "stock piles of WMDs" the American public was sold on? Trust me if we were in Iraq for the right reasons this election would be a completely different race.

[alpine_aw11]

Bush got over whelming support b/c of FEAR and FALSE INTELLIGENCE; which led to us going to Iraq on lies. If this is untrue why did so many jump ship w/ in his own administration and where are the "stock piles of WMDs" the American public was sold on? Trust me if we were in Iraq for the right reasons this election would be a completely different race.

They knew there weren't any WMD's. You can't sell the public on wanting to secure cheap oil and trying to "Americanize" everyone as a good reason.

[Psycho]

They knew there weren't any WMD's. You can't sell the public on wanting to secure cheap oil and trying to "Americanize" everyone as a good reason.
I thought there was gonna be a bunch of hot naked chicks there, maybe the desert heat would be too much for clothes. Sadly, it's just a bunch of dude butt.

[BanginJimmy]

im just stating the facts. I honesty DONT agree that we should invade to protect US interests. And the "Kingdom"??? are you talking about Israel?

Kingdon of Saudi Arabia. It is common knowlege that Sadaam had aspirations to invade there also.



Honestly, Gaza and the West Bank should be offically be the seperate nation of Palestine. Technically it is not its own nation currently. The United States and Israel doesn't even recognized the State of Palestine. Palestine has declared independance and SHOULD become a seperate nation with East Jerusalem as its capitol. For some reason the countries in the sphere of influence of the United States recognizes Kosovo, but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Palestine.

I dont understand why the US will not make a decision for a pro palestine. My only guess is that they dont want to upset an already pissed off Israel.

[ultm8mind]

When you say "we were lied to to go there," that statement implies you have been. Those of us with access know well enough we had all the reason to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. Things that you aren't privvy to, and probably won't be.

[Spektrewing386]

I dont understand why the US will not make a decision for a pro palestine. My only guess is that they dont want to upset an already pissed off Israel.


i dont understand why either, but its been something presidents have been against since like 1948.

[Vteckidd]

we werent LIED to. not IMO

We didnt go into iraq over WMDs. That was the ONLY THING Bush said IRaq had that didnt end up being there. Or they were moved out LONG before we got there.

There WERE reports and intelligence that there was WMDs in his possession at one time, but, intelligence can be wrong too. I mean nothing is infallable. Colin Powell sat before the UN an made his case that his belief was that Saddam had WMDs. So he gets a free pass but Bush doesnt? come on.

Its EASY for the dems to sit here an say "we were lied to thats why we went in" because they like to REWRITE HISTORY in THEIR FAVOR.

We were NOT LIED TO, we may have been wrong on the WMDs, but that was not the only reason we went into iraq

[Spektrewing386]

well the did have capabilites for WMDs at one time.... because America and other western countries gave it to them to use in the Iran/Iraq war.

[Pickleteg]

What really bothers me about Iraq is the lieing.

The whole Iraq thing would have been a different story if it was "to stop the murders the Bathe Party is commiting against the Iraqi and Kurdish people". That is not why we went into Iraq, its what we tell ourselves now to make us feel better. The whole situation would be accepted more if thats the reason we did it.

"We invaded because of WMDs." Yet again, thats not the reason we went into Iraq. That is the offical reason we did it and thats what the government broadcasted its intentions were. But that is a lie. Truth is that a few high government officals knew there was no WMDs and intelligence community knew there was no WMDs. There was nothing the intelligence community could do though against Cheney and such.

The idea to totally invade and take over Iraq has been brewing for over a decade since 2001.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Well said Sir!! I actually have been there 3 times and have seen some of the things that go on. I have always believed it was part of the plan to go into Iraq no matter what. We wanted to in 1991 but the UN rules were to get Saddam's army outta Kuwait and nothing more. The Bushs have had a hard on for Saddam for years. We put him in power and we knocked him out. Now I believe we should train the Iraqi Army to handle itself and let them figure it out. Am I ok with that...sure.... I still get paid LOL My $.02

[ultm8mind]

You get paid for what you do Pickle, I do it for free, LOL......

[Pickleteg]

HAHA!! Give me that WO raise then LOL.

For those that don't know....me and this guy are fellow Army veterans...we go way back to the days when he had a JDM fronted GS Teg. TDP Bitches!!!

[Bridged]

Alot of friends(Vets of Iraq - 2 rangers and 1 sp ops) have said there were rumors overseas that there were mission that could have been carried out that could have ended what was over there sooner, but were scrapped by people higher up. Don't know if it's true or not cause they wouldn't tell me what. But who knows...

I have heard alot of stuff since this has gone on some I have facts on and other stuff like above is iffy, but still sits in your mind.


I still think Bush being a oil man it def had something to do with it. I lol'd when they showed on the news Iraq people blowing up the oil rigs, lol. I bet bush did a darth vader episode 3 "noooooooooo" :bump:

Answer: No. Facts were wrong. If there was something hidden, they would have told us already unless it was too dirty for the puplic and/or we would think lesser of our Gov.

[Spektrewing386]

a lot of inside government officals have quit as a result of something they know about the war. and there has even been a few documentary videos produced detailing the inside process (given to them by these inside officals) about the leadup to war. A good one was made by PBS a while back.

[redrumracer]

YES

[Julio]

YES... Someone had to finish it.. was going on way for to long.. 9-11 was a sign of what wouldve/couldve been. I bet if the DEM were in power at the time NOTHING wouldve happen. And the US would be a bigger target now....

There was a reason the DEM supported the war ANYWAYS... They had all the chairs in house... =/


To bad The DEMOCRATS are now in FULL power... Its going to be worst when the Republicans take over office again in 2012...


DEMOCRATS ='s JOKE.

If we had more educated people in this country, I'm willing to bet the outcome of this election would be different and maybe supported more as to why the war happened...

[ultm8mind]

hell yeah Pickle that was prior to the Prelude, Skyline and Evo, LOL.....

[DrivenMind]

Fuck yea! We should kill everyone in the middle east because they are very scary IRL, and because one tiny sect of people amongst their enormous population acted out and did something crazy to hurt us. Therefore we should invade unrelated countries, topped unrelated governments, installing governments friendly, and loyal only to us, and get down to business. (See: Imperialism)

[Nomad!]

The goal with IRaq was NOT RETALIATION for 9-11. It was a statement made by Bush that if you think you can get away with pushing the USA around, we arent going to take it anymore.
This is a little off topic but, if this is the way you feel, do you think we should have invaded North Korea?

[RiceBoy]

Iraq was ripe for the taking, and we had good reason to go in. If we establish a democratic nation in IRAQ and a long future ally, think about how strategic that is in that region. IRANs people are wanting change (the young people). Think how its going to change their minds when they see IRAQ in 10 years bustling with economic prosperity. It was our only hope of getting the more educated people to look past the "kill the infidels" and see, hey, maybe western life isnt so bad.

Iraq was about taking out a terrible, terrorist harboring , USA hating, UN DEfying dictator, and a man that was bent on aquiring WMDs and possibly a nuke. Much like Iran.

For those reasons, we took him out. We are SAFER because of it whether you want to believe it or not.

/sermon

Dayumn Mike. I am impressed..Here is one post I have seen that is actually correct..If I could add, another reason for us to go to war with IRAQ is also PETROLEUM. Why do you think the U.S. backs Isreal? Religion? What is religion, it is just another political party in reality.

Imagine the whole middle eastern area without Isreal ? I can't even imagine how much gas it would be if OPEC have a jolly day without ISREAL.

[Vteckidd]

This is a little off topic but, if this is the way you feel, do you think we should have invaded North Korea?

you mean do you think we should invade NK? no, not at the present time because i think Kim Jong Il is all smoke and mirrors. His time is coming to an end. We have troops in South Korea to make sure those people are protected. We are keeping an eye on them.

but if tomorrow we can confirm they have a NUKE and its functioning, yes, we should bomb them back to the stoneage.

We cannot afford for NK or Iran to have a nuke.

[Spektrewing386]

its funny how people talk about a nukes and iran. Basically the ONLY way to have nuclear electrical power is to get it from America or do it yourself. And apartently doing it yourself is illegal in the eyes of America because America doesnt get money or hold their hand.

They will know they they electrical power technology was developed and made in Iran and not America like 70% of the reactors out there. We offered (demanded) to assist them in this project of theirs but they refused.

Its just like looking on a Craftsmen wrench and seeing that it was "made in America". But on a whole bigger level. They developed and launched their own satelites which they are really proud of. They also made 2 new ships this week which they are proud of buliding themselves.




But seriously, they are way more scared of america than america should be of it.

[Got Milk?]

Nope.

I don't believe that bush went to war cus of 9/11. I think that bush can care less about what happened on 9/11. But yet, i could sit here and type alot of reasons why i think he did go to war, and play politics with you guys all night, but i wont because it will end up no where just like the war in iraq.

My 2 cents.

[4u2nV]

Most of you are probably saying things because you heard it from the TV. I am assuming that 99% of you haven't read one document about the Iraq war. Did you read the official document let out by the CIA, stating the reasons why terrorists would attack us? I'm assuming not. However:

Watch this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggGZqYebrQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggGZqYebrQ)

Read the documents for yourself, dont take people's word for it. This man in the video is a respected Congressmen who was running for President (R). He is a Doctor, and has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Definitely a good man.

Do not listen to those people assuming and stating "facts" like they know what they are talking about, however, listen to those who actually do their studies and have proof of their source(s).

[One_Bad_SHO]

Yes. Youtube has the official truth from people who have not divorced, so its true!



I would most def still have invaded Iraq.

[Spektrewing386]

...why would you invade iraq?

[0p7!mu5]

durka durka bitches that's why:lmfao:

[GTScoob]

No, they're a sovereign nation and we should have respected that. There are human rights abuses in Venezuela and an abundance of oil, so why not invade them too? We know they assist with the illegal drug trade and Hugo Chavez has purposely aligned himself with enemies of the US.

There was an intelligence failure due to immense executive pressure on the intelligence community to produce results, so in that regard we were not lied to, it was just bad intel. There could have been WMDs, Saddam did massacre his own people, but we've put up with dictators for the entire history of America and very seldom have we ever actually invaded. So now we replaced a predictable dictator with an unstable democracy and set the grounds for decades of western resentment in Iraq.

America needs to look at the history of our Middle Eastern relations and see that we havent been doing anything right for the last 40yrs. There's a reason that Iran hates us and a reason that Saddam hated us and its more than just a system of governance. Its a whole cultural cleavage where Arabs are opposed to western intervention in their domestic affairs.

When the CIA overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT of Iran and enstated the Shah, we did it because the Shah was staunchly anticommunist and pro-West. He was a pawn of the West and secured Western OIL INTERESTS in the region. He gave us a voice in OPEC but then created resentment that led to the Iran Hostage Crisis and the revolution propping up Ayotollah Khomeini. We dont want democracy in the region, we just want a pro-Western voice in the region.

[alpine_aw11]

I think it's funny that people say Iraq is going to turn into a fully functioning democracy with an active economy because of this war. The country is in the shitter right now, which many fail to realize, and it will be for a long time. We need to gtfo out the middle east and never go back. We can never understand those people, and we never will. Their way of life is so totally different, we cant just "americanize" them like good ole' W wants us to.

[fredy123]

If we hadnt done so than we would be payin 5 dolla a gallon foo

[dorin48]

At the time yes. Now, no. Too many things to consider now that the dust has settled. There were a thousand more subtle ways to deal with 9/11 but we went big in the outrage and look where it landed us. The Patriot Act... A president who could institue martial law at the drop of a hat and a current one with gun banning on the brain. Emotionally driven reactions ftl. :(

Damn! I didnt notice how old this thread was! me=owned :smileowne

[_Christian_]

If we hadnt done so than we would be payin 5 dolla a gallon foo

Such an awesome post to bump a 2 month old thread for.:goodjob::goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

Such an awesome post to bump a 2 month old thread for.:goodjob::goodjob:


Ripe with well thought out reasoning and all.

[RedEj8]

I said yes..but it wouldn't have been so much an invasion as it would've been us bombing the fuck out of them..

1.Nuke Iraq
2.Take their oil
3. Profit

[eraser4g63]

Yes, see post 17.