QOD

Filed in National by on July 21, 2008

Why are we in Iraq?

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Von Cracker says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:30 am

    To make the Rangers and Pioneers money.

  2. jason330 says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:38 am

    GWB’s vanity.

  3. liberalgeek says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:43 am

    To make terrorists. It’s like a jobs program for the Middle-East, but without retirement benefits (other than 27 virgins).

  4. Rebecca says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:50 am

    Dick Cheney, Hallibuton, KBR & Oil. Plus Bush was too lazy to actually BE the president.

  5. Pandora says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Because they have WMDs… no wait, to get rid of an evil dictator… no wait, to spread democracy… no wait, so we can fight ’em there, instead of fightin’ ’em here… no wait….

  6. Mike R. says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

    I though it was 72 virgins? 27 definitely isn’t worth it but 72, maybe…

  7. mike w. says:
    July 21, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Because we believed they had WMD’s, foreign intelligence believed they had WMD’s, Saddam postured like he had WMD’s, everyone knew Saddam had WMD’s in the past and had actively circumvented the efforts of UN weapons inspectors since GW1. Apparently enough Democrats also believed they had WMD’s to give the President authority to use military force against Iraq.

    I’m not saying we didn’t underestimate things, or that the war was/ has been waged in the best way possible, but I’m not about to say we had no authority to go to Iraq. If we had no authority to go to Iraq we clearly had no authority to engage in the conflicts in Kosovo or Somalia in the 90’s.

    Then again. I still believe that if that area of the world had no oil we’d let them all kill eachother off so long as they didn’t bother us (like we do with Africa unfortunately.)

  8. Von Cracker says:
    July 21, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Ugh.

  9. Al Mascitti says:
    July 21, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Mike W.: It’s one thing to believe Saddam had WMD’s, quite another to launch a land war in Asia based on that belief.

    Geopolitically, there is one reason for being there and always has been — we need a military base to protect “America’s interests in the region,” and Saudi Arabia is not a tenable long-term alternative.

  10. mike w. says:
    July 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    “Geopolitically, there is one reason for being there and always has been — we need a military base to protect “America’s interests in the region,” and Saudi Arabia is not a tenable long-term alternative.”

    Agreed. Although I don’t think a military base in Iraq is any more of a tenable long-term alternative than bases in Saudi Arabia are. Our military presence n Saudi Arabia is the cause of many of our problems in the region. I don’t see how a long-term presence in Iraq helps us in that area of the world at all.

  11. Disbelief says:
    July 21, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    To protect their right to bear arms.

    *(Damn, I shouldn’t have said that.)*

  12. mike w. says:
    July 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    ^ yeah, that makes alot of sense…..

  13. Frieda Berryhill says:
    July 21, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    To rob our children of their Social Security so they can be working until they drop dead..No?
    Well
    Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. So the White House got rid of him and “re-estimated” the cost at $50 to $60 billion. It’s now over $500 billion.
    Nuf said !

  14. pandora says:
    July 21, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Agreed, Frieda. They lie and lie and lie…

  15. liberalgeek says:
    July 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    I love that Frieda used ‘nuf said.

  16. June says:
    July 21, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    “Because we believed they had WMD’s, foreign intelligence believed they had WMD’s, Saddam postured like he had WMD’s, everyone knew Saddam had WMD’s in the past and had actively circumvented the efforts of UN weapons inspectors since GW1. Apparently enough Democrats also believed they had WMD’s to give the President authority to use military force against Iraq.”

    Nice try, Mike W. Many people knew the WMD story was a lie to get us into Iraq. Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and Marine, a Republican who voted for Bush, documented how there was no way Iraq could have WMD because the US destroyed over 95 % of them and there was no way they could have built them again so quickly. The peace movement tried to get Joe Biden to have Ritter testify in Biden’s hearings before the war, but he didn’t want to hear anyone from the other side.

    Do you think the ones in Congress who voted against the war would have taken a chance for harm to come to the US? Of course not. The other Congress people were spineless and afraid they would look weak and unpatriotic if they didn’t vote for it.

    Then there is the letter from PNAC in the early 90’s, which Cheney and other higherups in the Bush Admin. signed stating we needed to get a foothold in Iraq. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    IT WAS A LIE FROM DAY ONE.

  17. Frieda Berryhill says:
    July 21, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    In 1986 Israel flew in and bombed the 76 MGW nuclear reactor in Iraq to smitherines. Since it had not gone critical there was no nuclear contamination.
    So, we ALL knew there was no nuclear WMD’s .
    We also knew there were no others since Powell would not testify at the UN without CIA’s Tennet sitting right behind ON CAMERA , while he was holding up that phony little vile, so we ALL knew THAT was a lie. And so did that spineless Congress

  18. mike w. says:
    July 21, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    If Congress KNEW the Bush Administration was lying why’d they authorize the use of military force against Iraq? And if they knew and voted for war anyway then aren’t they all (including Democrats) no less guilty than Bush?

  19. June says:
    July 21, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    mike w., I didn’t say Congress knew Bush was lying. I’m saying they didn’t bother to find out or listen to anyone else. They just hopped on the band wagon and went along with him because they thought they’d seem unpatriotic when election time came. Wrong! That’s one big reason Hillary Clinton lost.

    But, I do agree with you. The ones who voted for the war (including Democrats) are as guilty as Bush, as far as I’m concerned.

«
»