Why Invade Iraq First?

Why Invade Iraq First - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 5th Jan, 2006 - 5:17am

Register Login Text RPG Play Text RPG ?

+  1 2 
Posts: 11 - Views: 5136 Rating: 0/10 out of 0 Votes
Add Reply Q
This is not the same as the Post War Iraq thread.
Post Date: 15th Apr, 2005 - 11:56pm / Post ID: #


Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 17,339
Posts: 21,297
Avg: 3.4 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 89.0%
[+] Gain: 1,223.29 FP
Charm: 334

Why Invade Iraq First?

Why Did Bush Choose to invade Iraq First?

I guess is hard to understand it because some of us still thinking that there are other countries who were and are more dangerous than Iraq at that point of time when the US invade them. I am talking about countries who are extremely dangerous in every aspect you can think of and a threat to the US and the world...yet Mr. Bush seem not worried about them.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1086 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 12:21am / Post ID: #


Diamond + Author
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 3,526
Posts: 4,033
Avg: 0.7 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 17.9%
[+] Gain: 200.00 FP
Charm: 226

First Iraq Invade Why

Just because he took on Iraq first does not mean that he is not aware of problems in them. Despite the assumptions of omniscience among the mainstream media, they do NOT know all of the intelligence reports that are available to heads of state. Leading congressional leaders, including John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Harry Reid knew a lot of the same intelligence, and voted yes on the resolution allowing the invasion.

Now, look at the results again. Libya has folded on its WMD research, and is opening up to inspections. Iran is seeing a rise in demands for more democratic reforms by their citizens. Syria is withdrawing from Lebanon.

So, what were those more dangerous countries? N. Korea? Yet everyone keeps urging the US to stay out of there. China? What could we do there that we aren't? France? Yep. The most dangerous country in the world :P


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 12:33am / Post ID: #


Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 17,339
Posts: 21,297
Avg: 3.4 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 89.0%
[+] Gain: 1,223.29 FP
Charm: 334

Why Invade Iraq First? History & Civil Business Politics

QUOTE
So, what were those more dangerous countries? N. Korea? Yet everyone keeps urging the US to stay out of there. China?


Exactly those countries, North Korea particularly. I do not see any future attempt of invasion over there, is it maybe because the US somehow fears that North Korea don't doubt for a second in using WMD? or that other asian allies join them against the US?. I mean, you could take it as a joke, but I think those countries and their activities should be taken very seriously, yes even more seriously that what was going on in Iraq.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1086 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 1:28am / Post ID: #


Diamond + Author
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 3,526
Posts: 4,033
Avg: 0.7 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 17.9%
[+] Gain: 200.00 FP
Charm: 226

First Iraq Invade Why

I believe that the US DOES take those countries very seriously. The fact that we still have troops stationed on the border of N. Korea, and some are getting killed and injured all the time should show that we recognize the danger there.

And, no, there are probably no plans to invade N. Korea. After all, it is a very different situation there. And, yes, the concern about what China, Vietnam, and other Asian countries would do probably DOES come into it. There is also the constant urging of China for us to leave N. Korea alone, as China is supposedly pressing N. Korea to make the changes.

The point is, that there are different approaches needed for different countries. In some, diplomacy is working. In some, the UN is effective (although those cases are very rare). In some cases, the threat of violence, or the example of violence is necessary. When national security for 250,000,000 people is involved, then sometimes the violence becomes not only necessary, but immediately needful.

There are no indications that N. Korea is supplying weapons to terrorists. There were indications that Iraq was supplying such weapons. It is a well established fact that Iraq was supplying money, safe haven, and training to terrorists. Add the fact that terrorists have attacked the US, on US soil, and there becomes some amount of urgency to strike a blow directly at a source of supply to those terrorists.

And, once again, it has worked. The terrorists are apparently in trouble. Their sources of funding appear to have dried up (hence all the recent kidnappings for money). Their sources of weapons appear to be getting a little scarce.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 6:08pm / Post ID: #


Diamond + G.I. Jane
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 3,057
Posts: 4,267
Avg: 0.7 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 19.0%
[+] Gain: 200.00 FP
Charm: 182

First Iraq Invade Why

I think there are a few reasons why the US invaded Iraq and not the other countries. I also hope it remains they invaded Iraq and not the other countries and doesn't become they invaded Iraq first. Actually, they invade Afghanistan first, then Iraq.

Anyway, we had pretty well committed to going into Iraq by the time the Korean issue came to the forefront. I don't think the administration wanted to muddy things by addressing Korea until they were finished with Iraq, which they had already started even though the invasion hadn't happened yet.

In addition, they could use the reasoning that Iraq had violated several UN resolutions and agreements to which they entered at the end of the first conflict. They can't assert that with Korea. As much as we don't want other countries to have Nuclear weapons, I don't think we can just invade any country that begins to develop them.

Finally, the terrorist reason or excuse could be levered more easily against Iraq than it would against Korea. I don't consider Korea a direct threat to the US. They are more of a threat to S. Korea, but I don't consider that my personal concern. This is likely to be true of a lot of US citizens. However, I do consider many in the mideast to be a direct threat. This is where those who orchestrated the 911 attack orginated.


International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 ActivistPoliticianDiplomat 32%


Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 8:14pm / Post ID: #


Member + Agent Zapper
*****
[?] CPosts: 3,709
Posts: 4,419
Avg: 0.8 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 20.5%
[+] Gain: 224.48 FP
Charm: 149

Why Invade Iraq First?

I think it is unfair to say Bush was and is not worried about these other countries simply because of the media coverage of the war in Iraq. Like Nighthawk hinted at, there is a US presence in other countries that are of interest to the US, but of course, the media is very key in what the general public's perception of US international policy is. Just because the war in Iraq is on the front page of every major news site every day doesn't mean the current US administration is not focused elsewhere as well.


International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 ActivistPoliticianEnvoy 24.1%


Post Date: 16th Apr, 2005 - 11:58pm / Post ID: #


Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 17,339
Posts: 21,297
Avg: 3.4 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 89.0%
[+] Gain: 1,223.29 FP
Charm: 334

Why Invade Iraq First

QUOTE
As much as we don't want other countries to have Nuclear weapons, I don't think we can just invade any country that begins to develop them


Very true, specially if the US itself have also nuclear weapons (let's not forget that)...I do not think is fair for the US or any other country to decide who can have those weapons and who cannot...in my humble opinion if the US wants some countries to get rid of those weapons then they should disarm themselves first, who is really the one that decides who can keep the weapons or not?. Any country that have weapons have NO right whatsoever (in my opinion) to ask, demand or threaten another country to get rid of theirs first. It goes against any logic.

QUOTE
I think it is unfair to say Bush was and is not worried about these other countries simply because of the media coverage of the war in Iraq


If you read carefully my post I said "he seems not worried", I did not say he was not. As a matter of fact, I think he is very worried, why do you think he has not even made the attempt to attack N. Korea as yet?, simply because of the fact of the kind of weapons N. Korea has developed and because there are powerful countries who can back up N. Korea. They are not dumbies. They know what they are doing and Mr. Bush knows it.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1086 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 5th Jan, 2006 - 5:17am / Post ID: #

Why Invade Iraq First?
A Friend

Why Invade Iraq First

I was deeply troubled at the onset of the military operations in Iraq. I felt from the very start that our President non elect, had taken some unwise steps in mounting the lop-sided Coalition against the Iraqi military, led by their posturing Islamic dictator, Saddam Hussein. If a person within the United States is diligent enough to keep abreast of the news and expend some conscious thought on deciphering what was happening, I feel they would easily come to the same conclusion that I made. The war with Iraq was simply a shellgame to distract from the very real and still undeniable fact that our military intelligence and tactical resources had not been enough to root out the true perpetrator of the tragedies of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism that were visited upon American soil by.......... Osama Bin Laden.

Some Undeniable Points.

[A] to this day, the militarys of not only the United States but of Pakistan, India, Britain, Germany, Australia, and with even some faint aide from China and the former USSR; have failed to capture or even make a definitive release of information of being close to capturing Osama Bin Laden.

[B] The war against Iraq was condemned by the United Nations for a lack of evidence of any true violations of the nuclear weapons development protocols and sanctions placed by the UN against Iraq in the years 1991, 1995, and 1999, and 2000. The Iraqi infrastructure was already weakened after the US led Gulf War initiative in 1991, a military action that was set into place by George Bush Sr. Due to the arrogance and the pomposity of Saddam Hussein, the UN had to set into place an 'Oil for Food' program.

[1] Iraqi oil revenue was deposited in a UN escrow account.
[2] The Iraq Sanction Committee, comprised of all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council (People that were NOT Iraqi), reviewed almost all of Iraq's proposed purchases -- with foodstuffs and certain medical, health and agricultural materials exempt from review. This was solely to keep Iraq from obtaining militarily useful items for rearmament.
[3] Any member of the committee could approve, hold or block a proposed contract. In reviewing proposed purchases, members referred to established international control lists of items related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missile programs and conventional weapons.

[4] In 1999 Iraq did regain the right to spend its money in whichever way it chose. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people still had a Dictator that enjoyed spouting Anti-US sentiments and sabre rattling (or should that be scimitar rattling in this case?) about wishing that the Evil Infidel Americans would be wiped from the face of the earth. The arrogant Hussein even had enough gall to publicly praise the Al-Quaeda terrorists that attacked America in 2001. However, Iraq did NOT have a nuclear grade weapon fuel manufacture capacity, even though Saddam Hussein might have desperately wanted that addition to his arsenal. To the eyes of George W. Bush, the wicked Saddam was simply an easy target to shift focus upon.

[C] Our President lied to the American people, and to the Congress of the United States, and to the Coalition nations when he signed an Executive Order for the United States to go to war with a foreign power based upon the 'facts' which he said without a doubt showed that Iraq was violating UN sanctions and making and storing nuclear weapon materials or biological weapons. Those 'facts' have since been proven to be falsehoods. Only our Congress has the true right as representatives of the entire nation, to sign a Declaration of War against another Nation. The last time we legally went to War was in WW2.

While it may be beneficial to the cause of democracy to the world at large, the War in Iraq has been misguided and miss-timed from the start.

If the administration wants to use the excuse of clearing up terrorism, then why don't we see fleets of US Naval Ships chugging up to the coast of Ireland, whose IRA has been bombing for decades? I don't see a lot of ultimatums being aimed at the Israeli or Palestinian governments either for their terrorist activities. Possibly because they only hate each other, so we don't consider that ..."terrorism" if they don't bomb Americans.

+  1 2 
Sponsored Links:

Options Fast Reply Add Reply Add Poll


No Registration Required!

We welcome input from visitors:
Add Comment As A Guest
Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

> TOPIC: Why Invade Iraq First?



Donate Compare Membership
International Discussions Coded by: BGID® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2019
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,

ROK II

Current Leaders

Krusten

Krusten (15)
Wizard

Merlin (13)
Hunter

Thorin (12)
Stacia

Sapphire (9)
Adventure

Hayden (6)
Ammon

Nephi (6)


Aspiring Leaders

Uncleshotgun / Killian (6)
Symphony / Melodee (4)
Fantasy / Lileth (4)
Warlock / Runic (3)
Livdera / Auma (3)
Workman / Shamus (3)

Ready To Rule?

Are you here yet or still hiding? Come out of your cave and become a Ruler... a Ruler of Kings.

Highlights

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?: global warming Global warming has been in and out as the "latest" hot topic for many years. It is, according to modern scientists, the result of man-made industrial pollutants, clearing forested areas, agriculture, etc. But now they are thinking it started way before the Industrial Revolution... By Telly 2nd Sep, 2019 - 12:41pm Discuss It!
Atheists Not To Be Feared!: New look at Atheists and their thinking - Atheism - Athiest - Do Not Believe In God By Telly 9th Aug, 2019 - 12:55am Discuss It!
Donald Trump: Donald Trump President of the United States of America - Real Estate mogul, Pageant owner and now one of the most controversial men in political history. By PigStudy 5th Aug, 2019 - 2:54pm Discuss It!
The Trump Immigration Wall: Political Controversy WARNING you may find the contents of this Thread offensive, view at your own discretion. By News 15th Mar, 2019 - 10:36pm Discuss It!
Russia vs USA: Russia Tactics versus U.S.A. Vs Russia Russia: 'The Evil Empire'? Are they all that bad or is it just the USA trying to portray Russia as bad because they are a world power with land bigger and a society very different from the USA ideal? By News 27th Feb, 2019 - 2:49am Discuss It!
Stan Lee: Top  Stan Lee Comics By SMF 11th Dec, 2018 - 1:08pm Discuss It!
Kissing Up To The Boss In The Workplace: Top  Kissing Up Boss In Workplace By Reformist 22nd Nov, 2018 - 7:05pm Discuss It!
Men In Uniform - Authorized Excessive Violence: Political Controversy WARNING you may find the contents of this Thread offensive, view at your own discretion. By Pureyang 14th Nov, 2018 - 3:03pm Discuss It!
Your View On The Nature Of Interests: By News 4th Jul, 2018 - 7:30pm Discuss It!
Wide Screen Columns: Best of  Wide Screen Columns Users with wide screen monitors can benefit from more content on every page. By JB 14th Oct, 2017 - 12:32am Discuss It!
Offensive Trademarks: Best of  Offensive Trademarks By Abnninja 20th Jun, 2017 - 4:16pm Discuss It!

Updated every: 14 minutes