What are we doing in Iraq? Really?

Question

Obviously the WMD line was a bunch of BS. But what's the real policy driving our being there? My only theory is that it's a two-fer:

1) It is a warning to other nations that if we even think you're up to a terrorist action - you're little fifedom is toast.

2) Stablize the oil markets by keeping the taps flowing in Iraq.

You could never come out and honestly say "We're going to make an example of Iraq". As bad as the international fallout has been as is - if we had said that and then done what we've done it would be even worse? Thoughts?

Creating an ally in a messed up region is an interesting thought. I call it "Trying to replicate Japan". That is - we knocked the living snot out of Japan (tokyo firebombing, 2 nukes) and today Japan is one of our closest allies. Who'd a thunk-it? I heard one general say a difference is that we had a lot more troops go in an occupy Japan.

Removing the tyrant theory doesn't hold water. We supported Saddam with chemical weapons when he was "our" tyrant. And we as a country don't give a lick what goes on in Africa genocides.

"We" does not imply my being in Iraq. If being there gives you more authority to speak on the policy of why WE, Americans (sheesh) chose to invade a country, spend half a trillion of OUR tax dollars, kill nearly 3000 of our troops and 10s of thousands of Iraqis...then please share your wisdom. God knows we haven't heard any wisdom from the White House.

Jordan - if I filter out your insults and sarcasm then it seems like you are saying the policy driving our invasion of Iraq was the unilateral enforcement of UN sanctions. And we were unilateral because the UN lacked the will to finally impose sanctions due to smarmy Iraq backroom deals with say France and Russia. Iraq was avoiding paying a price for defying inspectors and internation politics was tying the hands of a giant - the US. Is that what you're trying to say?

Answer 1

We? Are you there?

Answer 2

Well, I have no idea why we went there in the first place. I'm a cynic, so I tend to believe we went to Iraq just to make Bush and Cheney's friends richer. (Note how Haliburton oil is the only US contractor in Iraq).

By now only the most delusional Neocons still believe Saddam had WMD's and had a part in 9/11. Of course the rest of the thinking world knows that to be FALSE.

While I was deployed in Iraq our reason for being there had changed no less than twice.

First it was because Saddam had WMD's and he refused to cooperate with the rest of the world.

Then it was, "well, we haven't found the weapons YET, but that doesn't mean Iraq isn't a global threat."

Then that quickly morphed into "we're here to protect the poor Iraqi people from that evil tyrant Saddam. This is a humanitarian mission."

Riiiight ... if it were a humanitarian mission then why did I get two expeditionary service medals and NO humanitarian service medal?

Answer 3

First of all the lost of 1 service member is too many, but it makes it worse when everyone think they are there for no reason..you can not support the troops and not the war...all the antiwar protests only encourage the insurgents into thinking they are winning the war, they are turning the US against itself..it 100% of the US back the war we would hve been out of there already, so you can thank your war protetors for some of the deaths...WW2 in Japan and Germany there was a lot less protet against the war, we were UNITED and we kicked ***, in Vietnam and now Iraq we are DIVIDED so we are having a tougher time.

there is no evidence that he helped 9/11 but there is plenty of evidence everyday that the country is full of terrorists.... but I support the oust of saddam, although started on a false pretense he was still a tyrant...and he killed more Iraqis in mass killing than have died fightig for their freedom the last3 years...I said FIGHTING FOR THEIR FREEDOM..do you think those Iraqi police are fighting for the US, no for themselves, they WANT TO BE FREE, try to discover some of the hidden good stories of the war

Answer 4

1. the taps aren't flowing at all at the moment, unfortunately.
2. We're looking to have a puppet Iraq, and that's all.
3. attacking Iraq makes us less safe. (CIA's words not mine)
4. oil. come on. we're expected to believe that if iraq were in central Africa that our actions would have been the same? come on.
5. If you think we're there to bring democracy to the middle east like we're told 1,000 times a day, think again. Functioning democracy in Iraq would have outcomes that are inconsistent with the goal of US hegemony, just as in our own "backyard" over a century. A shiite majority would not make favorable decisions in the eyes of the Bush administration.

[edit] one more. don't believe the lie that we've always wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was such an evil dictator. If you honestly believe that, go read 1984 again, and then read some recent history. Saddam was our guy for years, all the way up to the first Desert Storm. Through the Iran-Iraq war, through the killing, the gassing. How do you think we knew he had any WMD? Because we gave them to him. The Shah in Iran was our man for years. We supplied him with Nuclear technology and weapons up until the uprising and the takeover by Iyatollah. Oh yeah, that's where Iran's nuclear program came from!
goodnight.

You're welcome to argue any of these points. Also, any others who answer are welcome to contact me for support of these positions. Thanks.

Answer 5

Kiko,

Here's where some of your points regarding Iraq and Iran begin to falter...

To assume we gave Iraq chemical weapons, is just that, an assumption. Many experts will tell you that Russian and French companies may have sold the "know-how" to them, but nothing points to the U.S. We supplied them with conventional weapons only. Chemical weapons were outlawed. That'a a wild accusation.

As for Iran, were did you come up with the brilliant conspiracy that we aided them in getting the nuclear bomb? That is a twist on events. Instead, the truth is that we viewed the country under the Shah's leadership as trustworthy. We wanted to work with them in developing peaceful nuclear power. We started by giving them a 5 Megawatt reactor for research. In fact, the deal laid out 23 nuclear power plants by the year 2000 had the relationship between the two countries lasted.

After ties were broken off, it was safe to assume that Iran did not have enough knowledge to enrich uranium beyond the peaceful state for power. And with the programs abandoned at first after the revolution, there was no reason to think they'd ever have the bomb outside of foreign aid. Iran did not get to where they are now with our help.

If you'd like to cite your sources, feel free...

Answer 6

I think probably the most significant reasons we are there is the removal of Suddam Hussein, and to then establish a democratic government for a long suffering people. When we consider the tyranny of Hussein, a mass murderer of his own people, the justification of his removal and the noble and precious gift of a free society to millions in Iraq is clear.
We have to remember that this process is not an instant one, it will take time and sacrifice, but there is nothing more worthwhile.
It is important to establish democracy in the Middle East - not just important but imperative! It is a volatile region and every effort for stability should be made.
And, yes, it does send a clear message to terrorists in their own language - which has and will save lives.

Answer 7

Creating a platform from which the United States may exert influence in a region that is generally hostile.

Israel won't work in this capacity (for obvious reasons)...so the creation of a friendly state is the goal here, and not one that should be taken lightly as it is critical to foreign policy.

Too bad we don't seem to be doing a great job of it (if Rummy had followed GEN Shinseki's recommendations, we might be better off)

Answer 8

duh, to steal oil! that's what the documentary said on the internet, you know the one that said 9/11 was really masterminded by our own government. I refuse to admit that saddam was defying Un sanctions for ten years after he invaded kuwait, I also refuse to believe that he kicked UN weapons inspectors out. He was probably just trying to surprise everyone with his humanitarian efforts and didn't want them to spoil it for the rest of the world. When I was over there and saw the mass graves, the people celebrating in the streets when we arrived, tearing down saddam statues, people celebrating in the streets again when saddam was captured, that didn't really happen. the only thing that did happen was that whole oil thing. oh yeah we just wanted to kill innocent civilians, I forgot about that one.

Answer 9

anyone can see why the us and friends are there. Greed and oils and stuff like that.
it doesnt really show anything as maybe the war is wom but the little war will go on and on
no answer to this question unless all partys stop think and try to talk and find how to solve.
but this will never happen as the god called money is involved

Answer 10

ummmmmmm ok WMD's were found like a week or two ago, so there for I'm not even gonna read the rest of your statement. ill just take my two points now. by the way, what do you mean WE? when did i go to iraq?

a military wife

Answer 11

We're killing innocent people, many of which are our own soldiers...families are separated....lives are being destroyed...hmm...why ARE we still there? nothing has been done. i know my husband sits on his *** 24/7...no missions...nothing to do but wait. kinda pointless right?