Bush thought that by going into Iraq he would be helping us in the long run because he thought they had WMD. They didn't. Mistake. My friend's cousin went to Iraq for 6 months or something, and she said that even though she thinks it was wrong for us to go in, she thinks it would be even wronger for us to pull out now before we've finished because it would just mean that all those other soldiers had died in vain.

quote:

Originally posted by Greenleaf771:
I obviously don't live in Britain, but at a guess I would say that Britain invaded Iraq because Britain and the US are allies.

That's sort of my view. A strong American presence in the Middle East is a boon to Britian and Europe also. We should be working together, however the way I see it is that many European powers don't like the Americans leading the way. This bickering has resulted in a weakened, half-assed effort, when it could have been a great and well supported triumph. Still I think the situation can and is being made the best of, it's just going to be a lot harder.

That's my point risk, and expanded American power base also means an expanded Western power base in a region that's breeding chaotic threats for Europe, Russia, India, and the US.

quote:

I guess the WMD situation appealed most to the average citizen, its a scare tactic if you will....the other justifications arn't likely to appeal to a pacifist or just somebody a little naive or un-knowledgable about international politics.

That's about the way I see it, although I don't really agree with it. I'd think that the genocide and attacks on Coalition forces pre-war would have worked also. Hell, if they wanted to just let one of the F-15s get shot down, although that's sort of flashback to the Gulf of Tonkin.

I obviously don't live in Britain, but at a guess I would say that Britain invaded Iraq because Britain and the US are allies.

thanks Doctor.S, that was very insightful, i liked the way you showed the invasion to promote an American power base, something which is often forgotten about as a cause for war.

I guess the WMD situation appealed most to the average citizen, its a scare tactic if you will....the other justifications arn't likely to appeal to a pacifist or just somebody a little naive or un-knowledgable about international politics.

The UK still holds by the Butler report, yet it has been totally undermined by the British press and much of the UK believes we were dragged into the war by the US, or perhaps Blair dragged us into the war because of the US.

quote:

including the government of Britian.

The British still hold to the Butler Intelligence Report. Dont they?

quote:

DrStrangeLove, im rather at a loose end over what the real case for war was, but id like to ask you what your answer to this simple qn is:

why did america invade iraq?

1.) Saddam Huessien had defied core parts of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and done so flagrantly. This alone is legal justification for the war. In order to give credibility to any treaty, it must be upheld. Allowing him to violate the ceasefire unpunished would set a terrible precedent for future cases. Iraqi forces had also been trying constantly to shoot down legally present fighter aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone.

2.) The Baathist regeime was a destabalizing force in the area. Saddam indirectly supported violent Palestinian organizations, perpetuated poverty and tyranny in his own country, and apparently was collaborating with Syria and other known supporters of terror. Not a 9-11 connection, but certainly a terror connection.

3.) The Baathists were commiting mass murder and genocide. We attacked Serbia for the same, which is at least one major and modern precedent. This should be a largely universal situation demanding strong and decisive international intervention.

4.) Invasion expands the American power base into the Middle East and replaces a violently resistant government with a friendly, hopefully co-operative one. This allows us not only to protect important oil reserves (yes that is part of it, however it's more of a bonus than a real cause. Logically there are much better ways to control adequate reserves) and allow us to put extreme pressure on Iran and draw them into conflict. This is important because Iran is also a facist Islamic theocracy that is supporting terrorist fighters in the Middle East, and probably globally. A front against Iran is probably one of the more signifigant reasons for the war.

5.) To give credibility to the deterrence of Western militaries in the case of rouge states. Previously, many nations had been making slow but steady moves to violate or undermine arms control pacts and weaken our international interests. The overall mindset was that as long as nobody did anything rash or stupid, they could continue to get away with things. The detterance of invasion was lost to them because they did not believe it would happen. The second Iraqi War countered this and made our military that much more weighty a playing peice. Credibility is key to deterrance, and the Iraqi invasion provided an abundance of it.

6.) Last but not least, the infamous WMDs. These, in my opinion, were the least concern. It's really a part of reason #1, but it does deserve it's own explanation because of all the hype around it. WMDs are a very destabilizing group of weapons in the wrong hands, and a very stabilizing force in the hands of rational governments. It's MAD vs. Just Plain Mad, if you will. Before the war, every major intelligence agency in the world basically agreed that Saddam had sigifigant stockpiles of chemical and biologic weapons, including the government of Britian. You probably know this.
Unfortunately, this was the most shocking and easily accused rationale, and it was used as the main reasoning for invasion. That was extremely misleading, and I knew it from the begining and always said so. I don't agree with that, but I did agree with the invasion for reasons hopefully clear now.

There are, of course, many smaller reasons, but those are probably the largest and most quickly explained. I can throw out some assumptions as to why the WMDs came first, but they'd be just that. I think that it was a major flaw in a plan that had many. However, flaws do not mean that something is pointless or futile. And people are treating this whole war as such. If that were the case, most major military victories shouldn't have happened.

I dont' agree with some of the ways this war is being conducted, however I do agree with the end goal, and much of the reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by riskbreaker86:
why did america invade iraq?

Not just America. Just a note.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Hindsight is 20/20.

And forethought takes patience.

quote:

His approval ratings, like all approval ratings plummet in the middle of a war. Truman had the lowest approval rating ever recored in the middle of the Korean War. The protests are from a loud minority, they're not growing. As for the election, Bush was the first president to get over 51% of the vote in 16 years.

That's true, but for the past 16 years, there were more prominent third-party candidates, and therefore even MORE votes were taken from the winning party. And even with 8% being taken by Perot in '96, Clinton still managed to come away with 48%. But I digress.

Bush's approval ratings BEFORE 9/11 were about 55%-62%. After 9/11, it peaked at 90%. We wanted to see the perpetrators brought to justice. In August 2002 -- pre-Iraq-war, he was again down to about 66%. High, but dropping.

::Shrugs.:: I guess I'm just saying if the country you're protecting, serving and leading is going, "Hey, wtf?" maybe you should take a step down off the platform of pushing your religious/social values and see what the people want and compromising. That IS, democracy, right? Working for the people instead of working the people?

DrStrangeLove, im rather at a loose end over what the real case for war was, but id like to ask you what your answer to this simple qn is:

why did america invade iraq?

In war, presidents generally don't care about the average soldier. There are exceptions, but when you're the leader of the most feared (and most despised) country in the civilized world, you've got too much on your plate to care about some kid who should have been a farmer or a fast food worker instead of a soldier.

quote:

Originally posted by xmeSOsweet:
hostile republicans and democrats. just about the only people i can't tolerate. it IS about the money. no middle east, no oil; no oil, no money; no money, no bush. now, dr strangelove, back your butt off a little & let me speak my mind. a polite correction would've been enough. thank you.

You're really one of those people that think it's all about the oil aren't you? I'm sick and tired of people making stupid and ignorant blanket statements like "it's just for MONEY!" and acting like it's a deeply thought out opinion. There's a whole mess of reasons that have little to do with money and everything to do with global political and military strategy. To say it's "just about the oil/money" immiedately reveals a shallow understanding of the situation.

And I'm all for you speaking, just don't be so surprised when someone speaks their mind about your opinion. I'm probably the last person to tell to "back off" if I disargree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Euterpe:
Do I think Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out? Yes. Do I think terrorists in that area needed to be shown the world doesn't take ****? Yes. Do I think the above was gone about in the right way? No.

Hindsight is 20/20.

quote:

But, that's the way Bush decided to go, and he's paying the price with plummeting approval ratings, quietly rising protests, and an election he snared by just a few hairs.

His approval ratings, like all approval ratings plummet in the middle of a war. Truman had the lowest approval rating ever recored in the middle of the Korean War. The protests are from a loud minority, they're not growing. As for the election, Bush was the first president to get over 51% of the vote in 16 years.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Bush started this? The Iraqi campaign is just the second theatre in the war started September 11. If 9-11 hadn't happened, none of this would never have happened.

Let's not play the "If 9/11 hadn't happened..." game because it's pointless. Republicans can't truly prove Saddam Hussein would've attacked the US immediately, and Democrats can't prove he wouldn't have.

Do I think Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out? Yes. Do I think terrorists in that area needed to be shown the world doesn't take ****? Yes. Do I think the above was gone about in the right way? No.

But, that's the way Bush decided to go, and he's paying the price with plummeting approval ratings, quietly rising protests, and an election he snared by just a few hairs.

That was not an election that said most of the nation wants you; it said half the nation doesn't. And his attitude toward the Iraqi war and the widows, widowers, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. is a good amount of the reason.

ITs time for Pax Americana.

quote:

Originally posted by CelticNewAger:
But I think he's heartless over having started this whole mess anyways.

Bush started this? The Iraqi campaign is just the second theatre in the war started September 11. If 9-11 hadn't happened, none of this would never have happened.

Having blood relations has nothing to do with it. If an American is killed, all Americans feel it. We all express greatest sympathy towards the family who lost a soldier.
These soldiers died in the cause for hope. The cause that is noble. One that is not going to be won out easily.

Of course he doesn't care. He's not the father, uncle, son, nothing of these dead soldiers. He's not the one shooting Iraquis as a sniper and wondering if he'll live to see his daughters.

I don't think Bush is heartless making soldiers fight...because that's what soldiers are for. But I think he's heartless over having started this whole mess anyways.

Then again, he's not the father, uncle, son or anything of these Iraquis either.

hostile republicans and democrats. just about the only people i can't tolerate. it IS about the money. no middle east, no oil; no oil, no money; no money, no bush. now, dr strangelove, back your butt off a little & let me speak my mind. a polite correction would've been enough. thank you.

it makes you wonder who makes the final decsion to go to war, who is pushing Bush, is his ship tightly presidential? or does he work as a larger group of quangos?

That's interesting Red.