BF2S Forums The reason(s) the United States went to war with Iraq. . . . .

geNius wrote:

m3thod wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

The case for war was legit!! The timing is what wasnt wise on the part of the Bush administration. . . .

Yeah back in 1988 when he was gassing his people! Where the fuck where you people then? Oh, that right selling him the damn fucking things.

You bollox'ed up just admit it.

I'm fairly certain you type things just to see them up on the screen.

Quite the retort.  I am overwhelmed.

Ya got me.

fadedsteve wrote:

Basically, what led to the war was Saddam's refusal to abide by UN resolutions, his failure to abide by the terms of his surrender inthe first Gulf War, and the perception (by all intelligence communities, not just the US's) that Saddam was looking to produce WMD's.

In hindsight, we can see that the WMD program was either dismantled, or that WMD's were hidden or shipped to Iran or Syria. The large stores of WMD's had not materialized. So apparently, the US Intelligence community was fooled (as were British, French, German, and other nation's intelligence).

How did they do that with all the Satellite surveillance going on at the time. If it had happened, Collin Powell could have used the real images instead of doctored lies. Powell described this episode as the low point in his career. The UN was lied to by the USA and the UK so any decision they made based on that evidence is null and void.

fadedsteve wrote:

That said, why didn't Saddam just submit to the inspections? Why didn't he abide by the UN resolutions or the surrender agreement? He could have avoided this whole mess, and been living the high life in Bagdad?

Weapons inspectors were kicked out 5 years previous to the war, but in the run up to the war, Hans Blix, the head of the 2002-03 weapons inspection team reported that they were getting good cooperation from the Iraqis.

fadedsteve wrote:

Perhaps he liked being viewed as powerful and dangerous? Perhaps he didn't like answering to the UN? But regardless, for 12 years, he thumbed his nose at the rest of the world (yes, Canada, you too), and refused to abide by his own surrender agreement.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you:
What if following WW2, Hitler would have survived, Germany would not have been occupied (let's say the Allies stopped at Germany's borders, and had merely displaced all the occupying German troops from invaded countries, sort of like the Coalition forces did in Kuwait), and the Nazi war machine continued to produce weapons, and worked towards getting a nuclear device? Would you have faulted the US for invading Germany and deposing Hitler?

Like Hitler, Saddam had used WMD in the past, invaded his neighboring nations and occupied them, and basically said to the world "What are you going to do about it?". Would you have felt safe in 1948 if Hitler had been churning out weapons, and refusing to abide by his surrender agreement signed in 1945? Would you fault the US and Britain for wanting to disarm him? Why is the Iraq situation much different?

Coff* Didn't the US give him money, intelligence and arms to, as you say "invaded his neighboring nations"?

fadedsteve wrote:

Consider that for a bit.

*I got this tidbit from another forum, so I am not claiming all this text is mine* However, I couldnt have said it better myself !

Comparing Saddam to Hitler, lol.

Did the US arm Hitler in the fight against his neighbour Poland?
Did the US sell Hitler technology and equipment when he was using chemical weapons on his people?
I hope not.

Gimme a fucking break. If we had of done nothing, the world would still be coasting along right this minute.



Nothing like all that oil Iraq is sitting on...

And you are all forgetting....

If you can monopolise control of the only oil pipeline going into China you are sitting on a river of cash...

Which is why Iran will be invaded soon. Ahmadinejacket wont let US corps complete the pipeline from Iraq's oil fields to the Afghani section of the pipeline....

Pubic wrote:

Who was it that sold Saddam his WMDs in the first place?

Most of the world.

Most notably; France, the US, Germany, Italy, the UK, Egypt, China, Spain, Austria, India, etc.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Did we have troops stationed in Saudi?  Ships in the gulf?

A threat does not imply it was imminent to someone in Iowa.

Saddam was attacking our ships in the gulf?

Well then it wouldn't be classified as a threat anymore if he did would it?

Of course it would. A threat doesn't cease to be a threat after you've been attacked. If it presents a danger it's a threat.

geNius wrote:

crimson_grunt wrote:

geNius wrote:

If a cop lies and says your taillight is out, then finds out you have an outstanding warrant for 12 years, you should still go down.

By your logic hasn't Israel had a warrant for almost 40 years?  I guess people ignoring UN resolutions is not a problem when they're your best bud.

Possibly, but there are two things to consider.

1) I never brought Israel into the equation.

  a) tangent
     · n. -A sudden digression or change of course

2) Think of an alternative to Israel, for the Jews.  Present your plan to the UN, and let me know how that goes.

It's not a tangent for a start, it's a comparison to the topic under discussion.

Secondly, the whole perception of Israel as being the Jews and the Jews needing a home is stupid if you ask me. They are people, just like everyone else, the fact they are Jews makes no difference. There is no need for a Jewish state, just as there is no need for a Christian, Islamic etc. state.
I am not saying the state of Israel should be dissolved, I'm saying more Arabs should be integrated into Israel, by acceptance of their legal right to return (upheld by every international legal body there is outside of Israel) and demolition of the apartheid system currently practiced there.

None of this relates to the original point, which was if this war was about enforcing UN resolutions, why has no one enforced any of the resolutions against Israel? Which goes a long way towards showing that this was a war for US interests in the Middle East, plain and simple.

actually the un had stated that if Saddam was not out of the country in 24 hours the UN would invade, and when the 24 hours were up the US began the invasion, and of course the UN condemmed the US for invading even though it was it's own idea. (freking hate the UN)

mcminty wrote:

Gimme a fucking break. If we had of done nothing, the world would still be coasting along right this minute.



Nothing like all that oil Iraq is sitting on...

Yeah it would be coasting along wouldn't it?  Iraq making money off the UN's useless sanctions. More countries (Iran, NK, etc) seeing the UN and their "naughty boy" resolutions don't mean dick.

I would really like...RIGHT FUCKING NOW....for one of you to show me exactly how the oil from Iraq gets in my car here in Ohio????  Please fucking show me.  Proof???  Anyone???

usmarine2005 wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Gimme a fucking break. If we had of done nothing, the world would still be coasting along right this minute.



Nothing like all that oil Iraq is sitting on...

Yeah it would be coasting along wouldn't it?  Iraq making money off the UN's useless sanctions. More countries (Iran, NK, etc) seeing the UN and their "naughty boy" resolutions don't mean dick.

I would really like...RIGHT FUCKING NOW....for one of you to show me exactly how the oil from Iraq gets in my car here in Ohio????  Please fucking show me.  Proof???  Anyone???

WTF has it got to do with your car in Ohio? ask yourself who has profited from the war in the middle east? oil companies are around the top of the list, who continues making year on year record profits? oil companies. Who wants to secure 50 years drilling rights in Iraq as part of the payment for the regime change?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-06-19 07:46:15)

Pubic wrote:

Who was it that sold Saddam his WMDs in the first place?

The US, UK, France, and China. (Probably Russia as well but that's unconfirmed.)

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Gimme a fucking break. If we had of done nothing, the world would still be coasting along right this minute.



Nothing like all that oil Iraq is sitting on...

Yeah it would be coasting along wouldn't it?  Iraq making money off the UN's useless sanctions. More countries (Iran, NK, etc) seeing the UN and their "naughty boy" resolutions don't mean dick.

I would really like...RIGHT FUCKING NOW....for one of you to show me exactly how the oil from Iraq gets in my car here in Ohio????  Please fucking show me.  Proof???  Anyone???

I recommend spectacles.  You're shortsightedness is causing you some problems.

Poor baby.

Thank you for proving my point.  No proof or facts.

usmarine2005 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Yeah it would be coasting along wouldn't it?  Iraq making money off the UN's useless sanctions. More countries (Iran, NK, etc) seeing the UN and their "naughty boy" resolutions don't mean dick.

I would really like...RIGHT FUCKING NOW....for one of you to show me exactly how the oil from Iraq gets in my car here in Ohio????  Please fucking show me.  Proof???  Anyone???

WTF has it got to do with your car in Ohio? ask yourself who has profited from the war in the middle east? oil companies are around the top of the list, who continues making year on year record profits? oil companies. Who wants to secure 50 years drilling rights in Iraq as part of the payment for the regime change?

Where is the Iraq oil going?  I want fucking proof, not all the BS blabber you people have spewed all over this thread.  FACTS PLEASE.

It's more to do with who is processing the Iraqi oil. Which is predominantly US contractors. It's not so much the oil itself as the associated industrial infrastructure.

The contracts are extremely lucrative. Especially with the new laws quietly being passed concerning PSAs. Blair's proposal that "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN" and that "The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
This never happened, resolution 1483 does not support it, instead it allows for deductions to be made from Iraq's oil revenue as 'compensation' for the invasion. Read the loS document for further details on how the coalition will be profiting from the war.

Also, you're very fond of bringing up the corruption and the kickbacks involved in the UNs oil for food program. You do realise that the US are the ones who made this possible? Companies like Bayoil broke all kinds of rules. It wasn't corruption by the UN, it was corruption by the oil companies, mainly in the US - since US contracts accounted for more than half of the illegal kickbacks Saddam got.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-19 09:08:11)

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

WTF has it got to do with your car in Ohio? ask yourself who has profited from the war in the middle east? oil companies are around the top of the list, who continues making year on year record profits? oil companies. Who wants to secure 50 years drilling rights in Iraq as part of the payment for the regime change?

Where is the Iraq oil going?  I want fucking proof, not all the BS blabber you people have spewed all over this thread.  FACTS PLEASE.

It's more to do with who is processing the Iraqi oil. Which is predominantly US contractors. It's not so much the oil itself as the associated industrial infrastructure.

The contracts are extremely lucrative.

The Kurds are still trying to figure out who gets to negotiate these contracts. A critical "benchmark" that hasn't been reached.