• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why the US Invaded Iraq

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Seems that Bush went from one reason to another.

From a speech given by Bush in October 2002

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Well, those reasons didn't pan out as true. So ..............in 2005 he said:

President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/


But, oh my, but in 2003 the following was stated:

As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...ush+reasons+iraq+war&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=cz

And in San Diego in a speech Bush said:

He said the U.S. mission in Iraq is to turn that country into a democratic ally, just as the United States did with Japan after World War II.
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...ush+reasons+iraq+war&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=cz

I could give you more reasons, but well I have other things I need to do, and you get the drift. The reasons kept changing and changing and changing.

Well, what was THE REASON we went?
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
Because the Democrats voted for us to go. At least those who were in favor of it before they weren't.:laugh:
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
What is the purpose of this thread? You can't change history or the fact that we have been there. Your hero promises to get us out. Then there will be a blood bath between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and you can blame Bush for the millions of lives that will be lost after Obama pulls our troops out. We know that according to some people, whatever horrors the future holds, it will be Bush's fault for the rest of our lives on this planet. And the world will blame America/Bush for all evil to come forever. :sleeping_2:
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LadyEagle said:
What is the purpose of this thread?

I started it from another thread so some who were arguing there can continue and so that thread can go back to its OP topic.

You can't change history or the fact that we have been there. Your hero promises to get us out. Then there will be a blood bath between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and you can blame Bush for the millions of lives that will be lost after Obama pulls our troops out.

That there will be a blood bath when we pull out of Iraq is the very reason I was against the invasion before the invasion occurred. It does not matter if we pull out tomorrow or in 100 years, the blood bath will take place. The Kurds, Shia and Sunni have been killing each other for over 1300 years ... and that will continue and intensify as soon as we leave. I have a very hard time understanding how seemingly or supposed intelligent people did not know their history. Or perhaps those who protested were silenced.

Saying that, I have no heros who are politicians. But I do recognize bad ones when I see them regardless of the party they are members of.

We know that according to some people, whatever horrors the future holds, it will be Bush's fault for the rest of our lives on this planet. And the world will blame America/Bush for all evil to come forever. :sleeping_2:

I think you are wrong. Thank God his term is almost over. I was a Bush supporter until he proved himself so inept.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
LadyEagle said:
What is the purpose of this thread? You can't change history or the fact that we have been there. Your hero promises to get us out. Then there will be a blood bath between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and you can blame Bush for the millions of lives that will be lost after Obama pulls our troops out. We know that according to some people, whatever horrors the future holds, it will be Bush's fault for the rest of our lives on this planet. And the world will blame America/Bush for all evil to come forever. :sleeping_2:
One may not have purpose for a thread; one can, however, wallow in their confusion displaying it for all to see.

In 2060 College students in American History 306 will be asked on their final project:

Make a video using at least 8 different sources* showing 12 of the reasons why American and her allies had to invade Iraq in 2003. Include at least four reasons given by the then President Bush or his staff.

* Use these standards for showing the video sources ( omitted for this post to save bandwidth).

Then make a second part to the video using at least 8 different sources* showing 18 influences for good in 2060 that the 2003 Liberation of Iraq had for the United States of America & the Middle East.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Enoch

New Member
LadyEagle said:
What is the purpose of this thread? You can't change history or the fact that we have been there. Your hero promises to get us out. Then there will be a blood bath between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and you can blame Bush for the millions of lives that will be lost after Obama pulls our troops out. We know that according to some people, whatever horrors the future holds, it will be Bush's fault for the rest of our lives on this planet. And the world will blame America/Bush for all evil to come forever. :sleeping_2:

LadyEagle pretty much summed it up for me. :sleeping_2:
 

JustChristian

New Member
Mr

LadyEagle said:
What is the purpose of this thread? You can't change history or the fact that we have been there. Your hero promises to get us out. Then there will be a blood bath between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and you can blame Bush for the millions of lives that will be lost after Obama pulls our troops out. We know that according to some people, whatever horrors the future holds, it will be Bush's fault for the rest of our lives on this planet. And the world will blame America/Bush for all evil to come forever. :sleeping_2:

We wouldn't have the problem of getting out gracefully if we had never invaded Iraq in the first place. Are you saying we should never get out? Or maybe in 100 years like McCain said? If there's to be a (continuation of this) bloodbath it will be the fault of those who got us in.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JustChristian said:
We wouldn't have the problem of getting out gracefully if we had never invaded Iraq in the first place.
If I hadn't gotten out of bed today, I wouldn't have to read this tripe. But I did. Now I just have to press on and figure out the best way to deal with it.
JustChristian said:
If there's to be a (continuation of this) bloodbath it will be the fault of those who got us in.
Now wait a minute; Obama promised to get us out of Iraq. If he doesn't make good on his promise, it's Bush's fault?

Please explain that one to me.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
First, the OP addresses several different issues and conflates them. The first quote and third quote talk about why we got in. The second quote talks about why we should "continue fighting." In other words, the second quote has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This type of sloppy argumentation is weak and unacceptable.

Second, any blood bath will be the fault of those who shed blood. It will not be the fault of those who "got us in there." Let's not shift blame. If someone kills someone else, the fault lies with the killer. This "blame Bush for everything" is pretty easy to see through.
 

JustChristian

New Member
Don said:
If I hadn't gotten out of bed today, I wouldn't have to read this tripe. But I did. Now I just have to press on and figure out the best way to deal with it.

Now wait a minute; Obama promised to get us out of Iraq. If he doesn't make good on his promise, it's Bush's fault?

Please explain that one to me.

He has to try to make the best of a bad situation. By your logic his predecessor could have invaded a sovereign nation, alienated all our allies, and destryoed our economy running a deficit of $1T. Oh, I suppose he did all that. It will take an extraordinary President with a strong supporting cast to get us out of this mess.
 

LeBuick

New Member
JustChristian said:
We wouldn't have the problem of getting out gracefully if we had never invaded Iraq in the first place. Are you saying we should never get out? Or maybe in 100 years like McCain said? If there's to be a (continuation of this) bloodbath it will be the fault of those who got us in.

Don't forget the $10 Billion a month and the fact that a man lost his life at our command. Remember, we're pro-life.
 

NiteShift

New Member
Well, what was THE REASON we went?

You left out the most important reason that he gave - "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

But maybe we should look at reasons that members of Congress (and one former president) gave for taking action in Iraq:

"I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." - Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." – Senator Harry Reid, 2002

"I approve of what's being done in Iraq now and the way it's being done, but it's not enough." Former President Clinton, 2004

And so forth.


 

LeBuick

New Member
NiteShift said:
You left out the most important reason that he gave - "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

But the enemy we fear was not in Iraq until we got there. They came to fight us.

Then again they are not really fighting us per se, they plant roadside bombs, load vehicles up with explosives and wear exploding suicide vest. Like Vietnam, we can't release our full military might without the rest of the free world turning against us so we must fight this war on their terms.

Soon the Iraqi's will vote to allow us to stay and Bush has already agreed to pull us out in 3 years. I don't know what else our presence in Iraq serves to gain.
 

NiteShift

New Member
LeBuick said:
But the enemy we fear was not in Iraq until we got there. They came to fight us.

Yes, Al Qaeda felt obligated to come and defeat us there. If US strategy was to fight them on ground other than our own, as Pres. Bush said it was, then it was successful.

LeBuick said:
Soon the Iraqi's will vote to allow us to stay and Bush has already agreed to pull us out in 3 years. I don't know what else our presence in Iraq serves to gain.

I think our continued presence in Iraq is to discourage the Iranians from moving in and taking over.
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
If we really want a serious discussion here instead of bantering back and forth and finger pointing, it helps to know a little history and background. I will attempt to provide some information for those who are truly interested. It is not just that there were "weapons of mass destruction" which we found out was apparently not true or they were shipped out of the country, there was "bad" intelligence forcefed to our CIA and a Mr. Chalabi who formed the Iraqi National Congress and lobbied our Congress (both Republicans and Democrats and of which OUR TAX DOLLARS funded his organization) to oust Saddam so that he could be the next leader of the country, all the while personally forging strong ties with Iran. That history goes way back even during Bush I and Clinton years, but more on that later:

First, it would have been nice if our leaders would have learned from history and Winston Churchill's debaucle in Iraq which nearly bankrupt the Treasury of England and cost many lives during the quagmire there.

Winston S. Churchill to David Lloyd George
(Churchill papers: 17/27)
1 September 1922
I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse;

<snipped>

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world.
At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.

You can read the entire text here:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/files/public/Ungrateful_Volcano.pdf

Here is a link about the Iraqi National Congress:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/crs-iraq-op.htm


And there is an extensive timeline about Mr. Chalabi at the source below - these are snipped but the rest can be read by those who are interested at the link: (bolding is mine)

October 31, 1998: Clinton Signs Law Making It US Policy to Remove Hussein in Iraq President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (ILA) into law. The act, which passed with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, was written by Trent Lott (R-MS) and other Republicans with significant input from Ahmed Chalabi and his aide, Francis Brooke. [US Congress, 10/31/1998 ; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004] (Former Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will later write that one of the driving goals behind the ILA is to revive the failed 1995 coup plans against Saddam Hussein, called “End Game”—see November 1993.) [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] The act makes it “the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” To that end, the act requires that the president designate one or more Iraqi opposition groups to receive up to $97 million in US military equipment and nonlethal training. The act authorizes another $43 million for humanitarian, broadcasting, and information-collection activities.” <snipped> [US Congress, 10/31/1998 ; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]

Chalabi Receives Millions from State Department - Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress receives $17.3 million from the State Department to carry out what it calls the “collection and dissemination of information” about Saddam Hussein’s atrocities to the public. It will continue to receive hundreds of thousands per month from the Defense Department as well.<snipped>

Zinni Warns of Legislation Presaging Military Action - While few in Washington see the ILA as presaging military action against Iraq, one who does is Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the commander of CENTCOM. As the bill works its way through Congress, Zinni tells some of his senior staff members that the bill is far more serious than most believe. It is much more than a sop for the pro-war crowd, Zinni believes, but in reality a first step towards an invasion of Iraq. <snipped>

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

February 4, 1999: President Clinton Designates 7 Iraqi Opposition Groups as Eligible for US Funding President Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 99-13 designating seven Iraqi opposition groups as being eligible to receive US federal funds under the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (see October 31, 1998). The act stated that the policy of the US should be to support regime change in Iraq. The seven groups include the Iraqi National Accord, the Iraqi National Congress, the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. [White House, 2/4/1999]

Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

November 19, 1999: Congress Allocates $10 Million for Iraq Opposition Groups Congress allocates $10 million “to support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq, of which not less than $8 million shall be made available only to Iraqi opposition groups designated under the ILA [Iraq Liberation Act of 1998] for political, economic humanitarian, and other activities of such groups, and not more than $2 million may be made available for groups and activities seeking the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi Government officials for war crimes.” President Clinton signs the appropriation bill into law on November 29. [US Congress, 11/29/1999 ] This $10 million dollars is the first allocation of funds to Iraqi opposition groups out of the total $97 million that was authorized by the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (see October 31, 1998).
Entity Tags: William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Iraqi National Congress
Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

2000: Former CIA Director Woolsey Works With Chalabi’s INC Former CIA director James Woolsey serves as a corporate officer for the Iraqi National Congress Support Foundation which manages the Iraqi National Congress’ US funding. Also during this time, Woolsey and his former law firm, Shea and Gardner, provide the INC and Iraqi exiles with pro bono work. [Knight Ridder, 7/16/2004]

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

2000-2002: State Department Begins Funding Iraqi National Congress The State Department begins funding the Iraqi National Congress’ “information collection” program to the tune of $150,000 per month. The program is part of the US government’s larger goal of effecting a regime change in Iraq (see October 31, 1998). According to the agreement between the State Department and the INC, the group is permitted to use the money to “implement a public information campaign to communicate with Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq and also to promulgate its message to the international community at large.” The INC is prohibited from engaging in activities “associated with, or that could appear to be associated with, attempting to influence the policies of the United States Government or Congress or propagandizing the American people.” But according to Francis Brooke, an INC spokesman, some of the State Department’s funds are used to finance the expenses of Iraqi defectors who serve as the sources for several US news stories." <snipped> [Newsweek, 4/5/2004]



http://www.historycommons.org/timel...omplete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

People both on this board and throughout this country and world, as well as the press, for years and years have blamed GW Bush for "invading Iraq" without bothering to investigate what really went on behind the scenes or a timeline of events.

I made my tongue in cheek comments because the historical and background ignorance of good people has been spewed forth on this board for many years by those who don't know a hill of beans of what they are talking about, but suck up the pablum proffered by the major media and propaganda of various groups without taking the time to investigate the facts. There is no excuse for ignorance when you have access to the Internet, IMO.

I believe the "blame" for Iraq can be laid at the feet of many, of those of our elected leaders who are too arrogant to realize that history may repeat itself, without really doing fact finding and for trusting unverifiable intelligence, of bowing to pressure from lobbyists, of throwing American tax dollars at groups who do not represent the best interests of Americans as a whole, of a failed foreign policy under several presidents, and the list goes on.

I also believe, that no matter what Pres. elect Obama has promised the American people on the road to the WH, there are policies and plans that have been in place for many many years, facts that the American people do NOT know, and that he will have limited power as to our foreign policy towards Iraq and the Middle East, just has GW Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and others have had. Rhetoric is cheap when one is outside looking in.

Now that Pres elect Obama is being filled in with the REAL inside information and the various global terrorist threats and intel from various agencies (threats that did not begin and were not exacerbated by our invasion of Iraq, BTW), Obama's policies will probably remain on course as has been laid out for many years. When people start to realize that any President has no clean slate to work with, the finger pointing may stop. Pres Elect Obama deserves our prayers because he is going to need them.

[/soapbox]
 

dragonfly

New Member
Enoch said:
LadyEagle pretty much summed it up for me. :sleeping_2:

I believe the real reason you and LadyEagle don't want to discuss this thread is because you do not want to face the fact that this was an ill-conceived war in which you, along with the rest of the American people, were misled into supporting.

I believe the real reason we are in Iraq is so that companies, like Haliburtion, which has close ties to this current administration, could bilk the American people out of billions of dollars. What better time to do this than while using the attacks on America as cover for profiteering.
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
dragonfly said:
I believe the real reason you and LadyEagle don't want to discuss this thread is because you do not want to face the fact that this was an ill-conceived war in which you, along with the rest of the American people, were misled into supporting.

I believe the real reason we are in Iraq is so that companies, like Haliburtion, which has close ties to this current administration, could bilk the American people out of billions of dollars. What better time to do this than while using the attacks on America as cover for profiteering.

Obviously you made this post without reading my lengthy post right above this one of yours. :wavey:

Here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1327635&postcount=16
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Invading Iraq not only was ill conceived, it showed a shocking ignorance of the history of the region. Not only that but it took resources away from Afghanstan and we are paying dearly for that now. That is where the real enemy was.

Invading Iraq provided the best recruiting tool the terrorists could have hoped for and we handed it to them.

It is simply a disaster that was totally unnecessary. We have spent billions upon billions and have very little to show. We have had over 30,000 young men and women mained for life and over 3000 killed. What a waste of lives. There is no real democracy in Iraq. The Sunni, Shei and Kurds will return to chaos and killing each other as soon as we leave and only after another iron willed merciless dictator imposes his will and brutally enforces the peace will that chaos end ... but he will continue to kill any and all he sees as enemies.

Eagle, Clinton might have done a better job ... but it was Bush who ordered the invasion. There is no way around this. It was, is, and forever will be Bush's war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top