The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 231

Thread: Why did the US "really" invade Iraq?

  1. #31
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .44 magnum View Post
    Why is that stupid? It is the truth. It may not be a very good reason for going to war, but everyman wants the acceptance of the father and his peers. A right of passage so to speak.

    This general scenario has happened since the beginning of time.
    The Facts do not support the accusation....just liberal babble!

    If you want facts....see my post # 6 herein.....that is what happened and a few seconds of research will support what I say...all the other stuff these liberals spit out, ignores the fact the the Senate gave both Bush's the go ahead on the wars.....that proves my point if nothing else...
    Last edited by swampcollielover; 05-25-2014 at 01:39 PM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    The Facts do not support the accusation....just liberal babble!

    If you want facts....see my post # 6 herein.....that is what happened and a few seconds of research will support what I say...all the other stuff these liberals spit out, ignores the fact the the Senate gave both Bush's the go ahead on the wars.....that proves my point if nothing else...
    The fact that Junior was a known lier and fabricated WMD is the reason he got approval. Follow the blood money...





    "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories"-junior

  3. #33
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,102

    Default

    I don't find it surprising that there was protection for the oil fields. Anyone should have been able to predict that it was going to take revenue for Iraq to recover from the chaos of losing an autocratic leader. Not to mention that Iraqi oil could also become an additional supplier to the US.

    Also shouldn't find it surprising that if Saddam were to get pushy again, it could interrupt the US energy supply. Hate the oil companies as much as we want to, but they do provide the fuel that runs the energy of economies. When that supply is interrupted everybody hurts.

    If we doubt that this energy supply is a valid US interest, it's easy to find out ... just shut off the ME faucet tomorrow cold turkey, and see what happens. I remember what it was like to have those gas lines in the 70s. Pragmatically speakiing, how much oil comes out of A'stan? I'm not sure myself, but I rarely hear it mentioned as a "player" in the world energy supply.

    Saddam admitted that he was trying to make his neighbors believe he had WMD. He was making a good case for it with his actions at the time. Did Bush's advisors know that the intel was bogus before the invasion actually took place? I'm not certain of that. Bush had plenty of faults, but I think he respected the military and their sacrifices throughout US history. As a younger man he certainly appeared to shirk his military duty, but #41 certainly had to be some influence on #43. I am not convinced that he would have started the Iraq war unless he believed Saddam was a threat. Call me naive, if you wish. Contrast to Libya (which has turned into a hot mess & keeps getting worse), where Gaddafi had become a scorpion who had lost his stinger. No doubt he was a nasty tyrant (as was Saddam), but posed a lesser threat to the US energy supply. Supporting the rebels was supposed to fix the threat to the Libyan oil supply to Europe. Not sure that is going to work out as planned.

    I can give credit to Obama for pulling the trigger on the OBL operation. Both Clinton and Bush missed their chance on that. However, in the end, that was not enough to stop the AQ affiliates from continuing to raise havoc in the ME and Africa.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #34
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,340

    Default

    This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    956

    Default

    Ok Gerry, you're naïve. Jr. had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for a failed assassination attempt on his father. My personal belief is that, since we built the oil fields for the Saudis and the ME, we should just take them over as ours. If we're going to invade the ME, let's make it something that will benefit the US. We get more oil imported from Canada than any other country in the world. Let's just get our oil from Canada, and tell the ME to go pack sand.
    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move...0_mbblpd_a.htm

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooseGooser View Post
    This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.
    Gooser, if you would care to study it, resolution 1441 did not give any "war ultimatum", a violation of 1441 would be "returned to council". When 1441 was violated, it was not returned to Counsel because members of Counsel were against going to war, that is why 687 is cited and that was passed a decade before.

  7. #37
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Gooser, if you would care to study it, resolution 1441 did not give any "war ultimatum", a violation of 1441 would be "returned to council". When 1441 was violated, it was not returned to Counsel because members of Counsel were against going to war, that is why 687 is cited and that was passed a decade before.

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=27199

    Argue with Horowitz not me!!! Prolly better read on this subject than both you,me,and all the experts that have commented in the thread,put together..

    Gooser
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  8. #38
    Senior Member Matt McKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Did you ever get the feeling after reading one of these threads that you've become dumber from the experience? My head is numb.
    Matt McKenzie

    "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooseGooser View Post
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=27199

    Argue with Horowitz not me!!! Prolly better read on this subject than both you,me,and all the experts that have commented in the thread,put together..

    Gooser
    Not really a need to argue with a blogger, when you can actually look at the text of the resolution, and see he is full of sh*t. Even the US Ambassador to the UN said that it wasn't a war ultimatum. Here are the statement's from the co-sponsers of 1441:

    "This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." - John Negroponte

    And the U.K.

    "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities"


    Paragraph 12 reads:

    12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
    with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
    full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
    international peace and security;


    The entire resolution is found here. (just for reference, no need to read) http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texi...ocid=3dda0f634

    Iraq breached the resolution, there was no return to counsel.

    From the United Nations:
    " 17 March 2003 – The United Kingdom, United States and Spain today announced they will not pursue a vote in the United Nations Security Council on a draft resolution presenting an ultimatum to Iraq and said they reserved the right to take their own steps to secure that country's disarmament.

    The announcement by Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the United Kingdom on behalf of the three countries came just minutes before the Council met in a closed session on diplomatic efforts to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

    The sad thing about these bloggers is people read them and take their word as gospel, in this case he clearly twisted the facts yet that doesn't matter to people when his statement fit their beliefs.

  10. #40
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    162

    Default

    I thought is was because of his WMDs, at least that's what they told us.

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •