why did we expend so many resources against a country that didn't attack us

instead of using them against the country that did?


surely someone has an answer by this point...

10/19/2009 10:02:50 PM

nope.

10/19/2009 10:09:11 PM

10/19/2009 11:04:29 PM

-They had WMDs
-"Liberation" of the Iraqi people
-They ignored UN resolutions
-We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here

All valid reasons, clearly.

10/20/2009 8:31:22 AM

Quote :

"-They ignored UN resolutions"

That one actually is/was valid, since said ignoring of resolution meant firing on our planes in the no fly zone. Had they just said "We're tired of this shit, the UN won't do anything, fuck it, we're at war" instead of trumping up another bunch of bullshit, it would've been cool with me.

10/20/2009 8:35:31 AM

Accepting the premise that Iraq needed to be attacked (which I don't), the crux of the OP's question is this, "why did we expend so many resources?"


Answer: Colossal incompetence on the part of the Bush administration and, specifically, the Secretary of Defense.

10/20/2009 10:12:43 AM

Your facts are wrong--as usual. In addition to violating UN resolutions, Iraq did attack us in several ways:

U.S. PLANES STRIKE BACK AT IRAQI MISSILE BATTERY
Albany Times Union (Albany, NY) | August 20, 1993
Byline: JOHN LANCASTER - Washington Post

Quote :

"U.S. warplanes struck back at an Iraqi missile battery with unusual force Thursday, hitting it first with cluster bombs and then, when that proved insufficient, destroying it an hour later with laser-guided bombs, the Defense Department said. The aircraft retaliated after two of them were fired on by the missile battery in what Pentagon officials described as one of the most serious challenges yet to the continuing U.S. enforcement of flight bans in Iraq."

http://tinyurl.com/yfxghlz

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

Quote :

"U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a 'firm and commensurate' response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April."

Quote :

"'It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president,' Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 'As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans,' Clinton said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

10/20/2009 2:20:43 PM

After 9/11 there was a high level of fear regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. To an extent this is understandable. If box cutters can lead to 3,000 people dying, it gets scary when you think about what a chemical or biological weapon could do.

As a result, the US started getting worried about Iraq. We knew that they had experience with WMD's because we'd helped them with them in the 80's. We demanded that Saddam let us inspect some places, and he refused.

At high levels in the administration and intelligence community, this refusal was interpreted to mean that Saddam was trying to hide WMD's from us. This is where the crucial mistake happened. He wasn't trying to hide stuff from us, he was trying to hide his lack of stuff from his own people. If we inspect and find nothing, suddenly the Iraqi people (and possibly other countries) realize that Saddam isn't all that bad ass anymore, and maybe they start thinking he needs to go.

We miscalculated in that regard. Of course, so did Saddam. He thought that the consequences of inspections would create a more hostile situation than the consequences of refusal.

No doubt there were other factors influencing various people in the administration, including:

1) Saddam plotted to assassinate a former President who happened to be the current President's father.
2) Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (if not al Qaeda in particular) and we were mad at terrorists.
3) Saddam habitually broke various rules and occasionally shot at us.
4) There was a lingering sense that the regime should have been taken out in the first Gulf War.
5) The initial success of the war in Afghanistan gave an unrealistic impression about how difficult the operation would be.
6) Successful implementation of an Arab democracy into the heart of the middle east would provide an ally and counterweight to neighboring regimes.

That is the best answer to your question that I can offer.

10/20/2009 2:22:08 PM

Quote :

"Your facts are wrong--as usual. In addition to violating UN resolutions, Iraq did attack us in several ways:"

Hey, buddy, you can turn down your knee-jerk reflex and close your favorites menu. We know all about how Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy, along with other pot shots that were taken over the years, and they do not qualify as justification for the war that was started years later.

10/20/2009 3:33:54 PM

^ I'll respond as I see fit, "buddy." And the plot to assassinate Bush alone was justification enough to attack Iraq for me and others--and I would have the same position if any punk dictator like Saddam ever tried to plot against Obama in a similar manner. Furthermore, it was Bill Clinton--a well-known Democrat--who called the Bush plot an "attack against our country and against all Americans."

And maybe you're cool with calling missiles being fired at US jets "pot shots," but I'm not. The acts in question were a clear provocation--an attack anyway you slice it.

In summary, piss off.

PS:

Quote :

"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

--President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union Address, Jan. 27, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 3:45:24 PM

^ Clinton was also a notorious liar, do you trust him?

10/20/2009 4:12:13 PM

Quote :

"And the plot to assassinate Bush alone was justification enough to attack Iraq for me"

That's why Clinton sent 23 cruise missles over there.

Quote :

"And maybe you're cool with calling missiles being fired at US jets "pot shots," but I'm not"

And that's why the missle battery was bombed.

These fail at being legitimate justification when they had already been reciprocated.

You're a delusional warhawk if you think any previous attack from Iraq warranted the U.S. invasion.

10/20/2009 4:12:48 PM

^ there's no rational way to justify the cost and resources expended in Iraq, especially considering what's happening in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan regarding terrorist, and NK regarding their nukes. We (our gov. at least) didn't see the forest through the

I don't know why hooksaw even tries anymore. Mainstream Republicans aren't wasting time trying to rationalize it.

10/20/2009 4:17:25 PM

Total strategic move

Iraq has Oil and now it has American Military bases, a perfect jumping off point for other military operations in the Middle East

Oh yeah and the lucrative contracts that came with rebuilding the country (the military-industrial complex was slowing down)

10/20/2009 4:19:39 PM

Quote :

"why did we expend so many resources against a country that didn't attack us"

I was responding to incorrect information in the OP. Saddam Insane's Iraq was a menace--and now we're rid of him.

10/20/2009 4:36:00 PM

^You know what he meant. There were no attacks that provoked the war. You just wanted to be a pendantic troll, like usual.

10/20/2009 5:01:17 PM

The fact remains that Iraq did attack us in several ways, as I indicated. In addition, it was widely believed that Iraq possessed WMD--a nuclear centrifuge was found buried in Iraq, as well as other UN-banned weapons--and that they planned to reconstitute their nuclear program once inspections stopped.

Piss off.

10/20/2009 5:04:41 PM

No, I get the last word.

10/20/2009 5:06:13 PM

You missed the most important one:

Quote :

"No doubt there were other factors influencing various people in the administration, including: 1) Saddam plotted to assassinate a former President who happened to be the current President's father. 2) Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (if not al Qaeda in particular) and we were mad at terrorists. 3) Saddam habitually broke various rules and occasionally shot at us. 4) There was a lingering sense that the regime should have been taken out in the first Gulf War. 5) The initial success of the war in Afghanistan gave an unrealistic impression about how difficult the operation would be. 6) Successful implementation of an Arab democracy into the heart of the middle east would provide an ally and counterweight to neighboring regimes. 7) The fucking Israelis (esp. Netanyahu) and their foaming-at-mouth Zionist buddies in the US government and their friends wanted to destroy Saddam and Iraq because they saw them as threats to Israel's existence. Those said US Zionists devised the strategy and plan to attack Iraq and pushed it to the US government."

10/20/2009 5:15:12 PM

You understand that it's hard to take you seriously when you accuse other people of foaming at the mouth in a sentence that begins "the fucking Israelis."

I've no doubt that pro-Israeli factions were happy to see Saddam go, and likewise I'm sure that they encouraged the invasion. I find it less likely that they conceived of the thing and then pushed it on the rest of the government.

Also, it's not entirely unreasonable that Israel saw Saddam and Iraq as threats to its existence. Dude was trying to get a purpose-built giant cannon to shell them (not immediately before the invasion, but as an example of Iraq's policy regarding Israel).

But it's good to see some claims of a global Jewish conspiracy again.

10/20/2009 5:31:28 PM

Global dominance.

10/20/2009 7:18:38 PM

^^^^^ You sound like a man trying to justify why he beat his wife.

10/20/2009 7:20:10 PM

hooksaw is either playing the devils advocate or he's one of those guys who molds biased justifications to fit nicely within his narrow world view. Hopefully, he's just being a troll, but more likely, he's a compartmentalizing idiot whose pride gets in the way of his ability to reason correctly.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : -]

10/20/2009 7:51:25 PM

my points stands, despite the weak ass, elderly idiot based trolling.

we are in desperate need of more troops in afganistan, and there's no doubt that we'd have the situation much more in hand if we hadn't of misspent resources in iraq. but no...now we have generals saying a "mission failure" is possible in afganistan...you know, that place where the WTC attack was based.

10/20/2009 10:14:10 PM

Quote :

"why did we expend so many resources against a country that didn't attack us instead of using them against the country that did?"

this is a cool thread and all but...umm.....NO COUNTRY ATTACKED US

10/20/2009 10:28:33 PM

Quote :

"TWO TROLLS ITT"

10/20/2009 10:34:57 PM

crazy as she is, mamba has a point here. Attempting to fight a war against nation-states is evidence of a back-ass-wards strategy in this particular conflict.

10/20/2009 10:36:51 PM

this thread isn't about semantics.

its about boots on the ground in country A vs boots on the ground in country B...which should be clear to anyone who can read.

now if people can't make good arguments about that point, and choose to troll because they have no valid counterpoint, that some weak sauce...and i'll take that as a confirmation that i have a good point.

Quote :

"mamba has a point here..."

the troll wasn't making a point...especially not that one. the troll was engaging in semantics

Quote :

"Attempting to fight a war against nation-states is evidence of a back-ass-wards strategy"

If you have an issue with that point I'd suggest you ask our last president who didn't distinguish between terrorists and states who harbored them

10/20/2009 10:42:06 PM

Quote :

"now if people can't make good arguments about that point, and choose to troll because they have no valid counterpoint"

What you have outlined is the current state of American politics and, in fact, a solid summary of the debate over the invasion of Iraq.

Quote :

"If you have an issue with that point I'd suggest you ask our last president who didn't distinguish between terrorists and states who harbored them"

I referred to his execution of the post invasion occupation as "colossally incompetent" in this very thread. I've never been much of a fan of the GWB administration.

10/20/2009 10:50:00 PM

Quote :

"this thread isn't about semantics. its about boots on the ground in country A vs boots on the ground in country B...which should be clear to anyone who can read. "

thats fine but the premise of the point you made was flawed. if the premise was good then it would have been a great point, so you should have been ready for somebody to attack the premise. It was only a matter of time before an anti-afghan war person responded.

Quote :

"why did we expend so many resources against a country that didn't attack us instead of using them against the country that did?"

Why do we use drugs that don't make us live forever

instead of using the ones that do?

surely somone has an answer by this point...

10/20/2009 11:18:35 PM

Quote :

"The Entry Control Points (ECP) into the International Zone (IZ) have been increasingly difficult to deal with. It is nothing that is intolerable. However, in an increasing basis Protective Security Detail (PSD) teams have been instructed to exit vehicles for search, download weapons and such. That is okay, because after all, Iraq, like it or not, is its own country and sets the ground rules. Well, a few days ago the antics were ratcheted up again. As a team was entering ECP4 (old CP12) the last vehicle of the motorcade was stopped, which is not uncommon. This time though, the vehicles crew was harassed to give over smoke grenades. Lately IA's/IP's have been asking PSD teams for everything from water, to ammunition, to money. In following the guidance from the Department of State (DOS), Regional Security Officer (RSO), the vehicle commander of the vehicle attempted to find out the name of the Iraqi in charge of the ECP. He did this, but by all reports went about it in the wrong manner, which in no way reflects on the rest of the team who are true professionals. However, he raised his voice towards the Captain and was generally less than polite. He was told by the Captain to get back in the truck and move on. After another warning to leave, he returned to the truck and being the idiot he is, tried to sneak a photo of the Captain. This not so bright idea wasn't well received. The IA Captain saw the camera, and, with the windows down because the crew was answering questions, reached in and grabbed the camera. This is where the wheels fell off and the incident began to spiral out of control for the PSD members who quickly put up their windows and lock the doors. This in turn causes the Iraqi soldiers present to start beating on the doors of the now buttoned up Suburban. As the Suburban moves forward the T72 Tank that sits at the halfway point in the ECP turns it DSHK Heavy Machine-gun towards the Sub, and pulls out in front of it blocking its exit. As a result, the Suburban and its crew stop. Apparently, while this was going on the IA Captain put out a net call to his counterparts that an American assaulted him. The story he related was that the PSD member in the rear seat, the medic, took a photo of him and when he, the Captain took the camera away, the medic punched him, which didn't happen. Because of this report, more Iraqis show up and began beating on the Suburban with their rifles. At around this time, the Tactical Commander (TC) from the lead vehicle showed up and approached the Captain in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. The Captain promptly drew his pistol, pointed it at the TC and fired 2 rounds over the TCs head. The TC, without missing a beat says, "Habibi" and reaches his hand out to shake the officers, who unable to shake hands due to having a pistol in it, holsters his sidearm and shakes hands. The TC then talks down the situation; the tank rolls back into its normal position and people begin to chill out. Well just as everything starts to look okay for the PSD members an Iraqi Colonel shows up. Accompanying the Colonel are 5 - 6 vehicles full of Iraqi Army personnel with DSHK's. In addition, Iraqis were swarming down the street in large numbers loading AKs and strapping on body armor as they arrived. The Colonel, believing the Americans had assaulted one of his men was more than excited. Not listening to anything anyone else had to say, he demanded the PSD open the vehicle and surrender, which the team, seeing the seriousness of the situation refused to do. The Colonel, realizing he was getting nowhere with the team in the Suburban ordered the tank crew to run over the Suburban. The tank then started up its engines again and promptly rumbles out into the road for a second time. Luckily for the PSD members the tank driver wasn't very good at his job, so it took him some time to try and line up for the drive over Suburban smashing. As he was lining up, the PSD crew, understandably fearing for their lives, decided to try and drive out again. However, as the driver put the vehicle into gear, the automatic door locks on the front doors popped, the doors unlocked, and the Iraqis had them open in a flash. The Iraqis still mistakenly believing the medic had assaulted one of their own focused on him in the rear seat. However the rear doors were still locked and they were unable to get to him. The Colonels solution was to stick his pistol to the head of the Suburban's driver. Seeing this, the medic decided he didn't want his team member shot on his behalf, so he opened the vehicle and exited, at which time the swarm of Iraqis began beating him with fists, feet and rifles. The same pretty much happened with the rest of the crew; they were all jerked form the vehicle and promptly flex cuffed and beaten. While this was going on, due to the firepower and sheer numbers of Iraqi Army present (about 80 at this time), our QRF team who was on scene was unable to do anything more than video the incident as best they could and try to keep an accounting of the team members being beat down. Had they tried to intercede more than they did, the situation could have easily escalated into a full-blown shoot out, in which all PSD members and many Iraqis would have most likely been killed. One member of the QRF did cautiously approach and he was quickly cuffed and beaten. Somewhere as the beatings were happening, the military showed up on the scene in the form of the useless IZ police. Rather than calling for reinforcements, or senior leadership word from those on the ground was that the IZ police said something to the effect of "You're contractors, you're on your own" and left. An Army convoy pulled out of FOB Prosperity located next to the incident and drove by leaving the contractors to the Iraqi mob. Two army Majors, or Lt, Colonels, did try to get involved and were promptly pushed around by the Iraqis. The Blue Force Tracker, our emergency beacon, was activated early in the incident sending out a distress call. From reports, other contracting companies in the area were ready to help. However, help of an armed sort was not needed at this time. What was needed was diplomacy and someone who could bring diplomatic sense to bear. Unfortunately, the US Department of State RSO decided, because we are only a Department of State contractors and not a DOS Chief of Mission contract that we were on our own. So he didn't lift a finger. As a matter of fact, DOS took the radios we had, which enabled us to speak with the RSO TOC in the case of an emergency, and the RSO has severed all ties with our program, even during times of distress. Eventually, after physically beating the PSD members, the Iraqis loaded them into their vehicles, putting one in the truck/boot of the vehicle. They then drove away to an Iraqi base in the IZ with an Iraqi sitting on the hood waving his arms up and down, screaming a victory cry as they traveled through the IZ. At the Iraqi base, the team members were split up and beat some more. Some of the PSD members were beaten with weight bars from the Iraqi gym. The Medic was beaten so bad that he was covered in blood and began projectile vomiting from the head injuries he was receiving. One person beating him was an Iraqi General who repeatedly punched him with his Madhi ring encrusted hand. Eventually, the powers to be arrived and met with the very General who had been beating the Medic. They worked things out and secured their release. The freed men were transported to the Army Combat Surgical Hospital (CSH) at Victory Base for evaluation. All were released and doing well considering the possibilities. The medic suffered from a concussion and possibly other injuries, which may have to be treated in the US."

10/25/2009 2:44:16 PM

Quote :

"surely someone has an answer by this point..."

No one does. And don't call me Shirley.

10/25/2009 3:52:04 PM

Iraq is over Afghanistan is just getting warmed up.

10/26/2009 6:46:17 PM

Answer: Gotta warm up and get ready for Iran.

10/26/2009 7:01:27 PM

Hey, you can't have perpetual war without the occasional new enemy.

10/26/2009 7:06:54 PM

welp. it's officially over. obama just said we are out by next summer 100%

12/1/2009 8:07:53 PM

mission accomplished

12/1/2009 8:24:38 PM

101%

12/1/2009 8:29:20 PM

GOT DAT 190% ACCOMPLISHED

12/2/2009 2:26:25 AM

Quote :

"Smuggler: Iran Preparing for War with U.S."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/02/world/main5865573.shtml

lulz

12/3/2009 8:34:22 PM

^dudes have minimum 3 years to get ready. ha. that's about 2 solid years of building nukes non-stop ready to use against USA troops/Israeli defense force/European Union

i wonder if they plan on smuggling one across the mexican border. ha, man, seeing LA go up in smoke would be pretty

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 12:51 AM. Reason : d]

12/4/2009 12:50:42 AM

Maybe I'm off the mark, but I kinda think that any president, even Obama, would respond to a nuclear attack on America with a massive retaliatory effort such that the world had never seen and would not live to see again (because a bigger one would kill all of us).

That 100% nuclear deterrent don't work if you don't use the fuck out of it.

12/4/2009 1:06:09 AM

^^ Already being worked on. I can't remember where I picked it up (it was definitely open source) but drug cartels are actively working with Russian logisticians to run their smuggling operations and connections with AQ have been observed.

12/4/2009 8:54:24 AM

^^That's a pretty good reason to get out of the Middle East conflict altogether. We could avoid getting nuked, and we could avoid having to decimate an entire nation of people that were unfortunate enough to be born under a crazy leader.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 8:56:56 AM

That assumes 'they' will forget about the US if we just leave. I'm not sure I'd buy that.

Not to mention the impossibility of leaving the Middle East. Even if the militarily isn't actively involved, Middle Eastern oil and money ensures continuing significant economic involvement.

There's also Israel...

12/4/2009 9:10:34 AM

If we left iraq/afghan/pakistan alltogether...

(hypothetically)

you think they'd just forget about us and they'd never threaten us again? (in reference to using nukes i mean once they have them)

or you think they'd die out and keep all their nukes accounted for and turn into another non threatening russia.

one of those 2 would happen hopefully.


[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason : d]

12/4/2009 11:57:54 AM

Quote :

"If we left iraq/afghan/pakistan alltogether... (hypothetically) you think they'd just forget about us and they'd never threaten us again?"

When did Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan ever threaten the US in the first place? The US is in those places because of 9/11, and according to those who planned 9/11, they did it mainly because of the Israel-Palestinian issue.

So if the US (and Europe) stopped giving money to Israel (i.e., stopped enabling the illegal occupation) and stopped vetoing every single UN resolution that has harsh words against Israel, yes, crazy Muslims will stop killing/attacking the West.


[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 12:14:25 PM

Richard Armitage on George W Bush:

Quote :

"He says Bush and his war cabinet never formally considered whether to invade Iraq. "Never to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, 'Should we do this or not?' He never did it."

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/armitage_on_pakistan_s_spies_bush_s_errors_egypt_s_novels

12/13/2009 10:37:56 AM

It's amazing that people still defend the choice to start this war.

12/13/2009 12:21:29 PM

When did the administration that actually launched the war use any of those examples from the 1990s that our esteemed Master of Liberal Arts posted as justification in the build-up (2001-2003)?

My answer: faulty intel, itchy trigger finger on the part of some, belief in "American exceptionalism" to mean the right to project our power (along with anyone else who cares to follow) as we see fit (the John Bolton view, if you will).

12/15/2009 12:16:21 PM