Iraq

[Jimmy]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?
2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?
3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

 

[The Hammer]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?
2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?
3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

1. No
2. No
3. I don't know

 

[sun rise]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?
2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?
3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

1. Saddam was not part of terrorist attacks.
2. WMD was a lie by us to justify the war
3. What kind of nuclear technology? Bombs? Power generation? Medical technology?

 

[Jimmy]

1. Saddam was not part of terrorist attacks.
2. WMD was a lie by us to justify the war
3. What kind of nuclear technology? Bombs? Power generation? Medical technology?

1. Hypothetical. Would he, had we not invaded?
2. He tried before. Again hypothetical. Would he, had we not invaded?
3. Weapons? Does it matter?

 

[Twilight Hue]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?
2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?
3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

We are never going to learn the full truth of the matter. He should have stopped with Afghanistan after 9/11.

From what I hear, Bush was advised not to do it but he went ahead anyways with his "shock and awe" campaign.

 

[sun rise]

He tried before. Again hypothetical. Would he, had we not invaded?

He did not. It was a lie that said he did.

 

[Jimmy]

He did not. It was a lie that said he did.

In the 70’s

 

[Stevicus]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?

The first war against Iraq in 1991 obviously didn't deter any attacks. The second war against Iraq in 2003 happened because they didn't really finish the job they started in 1991. The terrorist attacks on U.S. soil came about from different sources and different countries - excluding our own homegrown domestic terrorists.

2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?

Possibly, although there's a question of whether they were even trying to acquire WMDs at the time of the invasion.

3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

Their present government? I can't say. I don't think Kim Jong Un is mature enough to possess nuclear technology, yet he has it anyway.

 

[Jimmy]

The first war against Iraq in 1991 obviously didn't deter any attacks. The second war against Iraq in 2003 happened because they didn't really finish the job they started in 1991. The terrorist attacks on U.S. soil came about from different sources and different countries - excluding our own homegrown domestic terrorists.



Possibly, although there's a question of whether they were even trying to acquire WMDs at the time of the invasion.



Their present government? I can't say. I don't think Kim Jong Un is mature enough to possess nuclear technology, yet he has it anyway.

First question is hypothetical. Would he had we not invaded? Guess we'll never know. Also Invading Iraq may have deterred other mid east countries from terror. I guess we'll never know that either.

 

[Jimmy]

The first war against Iraq in 1991 obviously didn't deter any attacks. The second war against Iraq in 2003 happened because they didn't really finish the job they started in 1991. The terrorist attacks on U.S. soil came about from different sources and different countries - excluding our own homegrown domestic terrorists.



Possibly, although there's a question of whether they were even trying to acquire WMDs at the time of the invasion.



Their present government? I can't say. I don't think Kim Jong Un is mature enough to possess nuclear technology, yet he has it anyway.

2. There's still a question? No wonder we invaded then. If we still don't know.

 

[Valjean]

1. Saddam was not part of terrorist attacks.
2. WMD was a lie by us to justify the war
3. What kind of nuclear technology? Bombs? Power generation? Medical technology?

#2: The Iraq war plans were already waiting on the shelf. The US was just waiting for some excuse to implement them. The Klein Shock of 9/11 provided just what the Neocons needed.

The UNSCOM weapons inspectors had already reported that no WMD had been found. The Neocons found this an inconvenient truth, and the inspectors were pulled out.

Notice that, in all the commotion, noöne asked why the US was attacked.

 

[Valjean]

We are never going to learn the full truth of the matter. He should have stopped with Afghanistan after 9/11.

We pretty much do know the truth of the matter. It just wasn't politically convenient, and the investigations and testimonies weren't reported on mainstream news.

In my opinion, we should have treated the second World Trade Center bombing like we did the first one, in '93: investigate, then arrest and try the perpetrators. The 9/11 attack was just too good a shock to waste, though, given the political climate of the time.

 

[lukethethird]

First off I wish the Iraq war never happened. Having said that I have 3 questions.
1. Did the war deter terrorists attacks on U. S. soil?
2. Did the war deter Iraq from trying to aquire WMD?
3. Is Iraq mature enough to possess Nuclear technology?

The first two questions are non sequiturs, attacking Iraq was not about terrorist attacks or WMDs, those were just lies. What is truly terrifying is that the immature moronic buffoons in Washington possess nuclear bombs, the same morons that shot down balloons with jet fighters.

 

[Valjean]

Moon said:
A shock to waste? It was a tragic day.

Not for the Neocons or for corporate interests.

 

[Stevicus]

First question is hypothetical. Would he had we not invaded? Guess we'll never know. Also Invading Iraq may have deterred other mid east countries from terror. I guess we'll never know that either.

Well, it's hard to say. The whole reason for the original invasion of Iraq in 1991 was because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. government also felt Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states might be at risk, but I don't think the Iraqi government posed any real military threat to the United States.

I suppose it's conceivable Saddam could have sent in some spies, infiltrators, saboteurs, or any other type of operative to carry out terroristic acts on U.S. soil - just as most any other country or even private organizations can conceivably do. Osama Bin Laden was able to send in terrorist infiltrators while operating from a cave in Afghanistan.

But if your question is whether or not Saddam would have done that, I don't think anyone really knows.

 

[Stevicus]

2. There's still a question? No wonder we invaded then. If we still don't know.

I don't think there was any cause to invade the second time. Back in 1991, they had a legitimate casus belli because Iraq did invade Kuwait and maintained an occupation of that country. Iraq refused to withdraw. It was pretty cut-and-dried, open and shut. They had their chance to pull out, and they refused. They had to be forced out, and ultimately, they gave in. They agreed to certain terms; I think the US maintained no-fly zones over Iraq in the intervening years.

The reason for the second invasion is because the US government was contending that Iraq was not living up to the terms they agreed to regarding weapons inspections. We didn't know, and the US government said the Iraqis were not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Of course, not everyone agreed with that, and nobody could really talk about it rationally, since there were too many people gripped with war fever.

 

[Jimmy]

I don't think there was any cause to invade the second time. Back in 1991, they had a legitimate casus belli because Iraq did invade Kuwait and maintained an occupation of that country. Iraq refused to withdraw. It was pretty cut-and-dried, open and shut. They had their chance to pull out, and they refused. They had to be forced out, and ultimately, they gave in. They agreed to certain terms; I think the US maintained no-fly zones over Iraq in the intervening years.

The reason for the second invasion is because the US government was contending that Iraq was not living up to the terms they agreed to regarding weapons inspections. We didn't know, and the US government said the Iraqis were not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Of course, not everyone agreed with that, and nobody could really talk about it rationally, since there were too many people gripped with war fever.

I see. Sounds like a second invasion was inevitable unfortunately