Was the Iraqi war right? Answered here!

[240 is Back]

It is what it is.

We saw a bad guy in office and made up a reason to invade.
We took that motherfvcker over.
We took most of their oil, and put bases there.

Now we are thinking about doing it to their neighbor.

In terms of US economy & military strength, it was RIGHT.
In terms of morality, it was WRONG.

What is more important to you- US strength or morality?
As much as it pains me to say it, for me, US strength comes first.

So for me, the war was right.  If you put morality first, the war was wrong. 
There is no correct answer - it all depends on your mindset.

[OzmO]

No.

We invaded unprovoked, based on faulty intelligence which was not only false, but did not warrant an invasion.

It will be seen as the worse decision made by an American president in history.

[headhuntersix]

Not so fast gents..give this one another 5 years..i think as tech increase and the world gets smaller..history speeds up so I think we'll only need 5 more years to see if this was worth it. I'd say that everything u have posted is right or close. We're pounding the last bits AQ right now and we're pulling the surge troops out. Hopefully deployments droip back to 12 months.

[240 is Back]

Iraq contains 50 to 75 trillion $ worth of sale-able oil.
The US control 80% of it, completely and forever.

The price for war is about a trillion, and will be probably 2 tril with long term health costs and base maintenance.

Ask any CEO if he'll invest 2 tril to get back 50 tril within 10 years.
Also there is additional value in controlling a limited resource.

[Decker]

Militarily the armed forces have been weakened--stretched thin.  I don't think any of the Iraqi bases have US missiles in them so as a tactical gain, I just don't see it.

Economically, we are fast approaching a trillion dollars spent on this Iraqi excursion.  The price of oil has gone through the roof.  I must be missing that economic benefit.

Legally, the war was unfounded.  That means war crimes.  It also means lawlessness.  That's bad no matter which way you analyze the data.

[Decker]

Iraq contains 50 to 75 trillion $ worth of sale-able oil.
The US control 80% of it, completely and forever.

The price for war is about a trillion, and will be probably 2 tril with long term health costs and base maintenance.

Ask any CEO if he'll invest 2 tril to get back 50 tril within 10 years.
Also there is additional value in controlling a limited resource.

Access to oil reserves is one thing.  Banking on some projected 75 trillion dollar payoff is another.

The entire 2006 GDP was over 13 trillion.  13--75.  There is some dissonance in that comparison.

[headhuntersix]

I'm not getting into the legality thing...but we do have a battered military and its stretched thin...assuming things continue in Iraq like they are it begins to wind down..this is what I see.

We will enlarge the military...maybe by 2 divsions with more SOF units added as well/US Marines will get bigger
we will have to buy a whole new family of vehicles to replace the Humvee..the MI will get an upgrade
We will replace the M-16 with another weaposn system
We will have to buy more tankers and transport aircraft
We will buy more littoral or riverine type ships to deal with Rivers and coastal patroling

We will end up with a highly trained force. Its getting ragged right now but those in continue to reenlist..that says something. Countries like China and Russia are taking notice. We have lost no major battles..we've lost relatively few troops. Compare that to the disasters in Chechnya and the fact that China has not really deployed troops outside her borders since 52'.

[Decker]

I'm not getting into the legality thing...but we do have a battered military and its stretched thin...assuming things continue in Iraq like they are it begins to wind down..this is what I see.

We will enlarge the military...maybe by 2 divsions with more SOF units added as well/US Marines will get bigger
we will have to buy a whole new family of vehicles to replace the Humvee..the MI will get an upgrade
We will replace the M-16 with another weaposn system
We will have to buy more tankers and transport aircraft
We will buy more littoral or riverine type ships to deal with Rivers and coastal patroling

We will end up with a highly trained force. Its getting ragged right now but those in continue to reenlist..that says something. Countries like China and Russia are taking notice. We have lost no major battles..we've lost relatively few troops. Compare that to the disasters in Chechnya and the fact that China has not really deployed troops outside her borders since 52'.

That's a lot of governmental spending upgrading the military.  I did not know that about China. 

[headhuntersix]

They had some fire fights with Russia during the cold war and I did miss the fact that they invaded Vietnam in 1979 and took it in the shorts. Their military is alot better but is atleast 1-2 generatiosn behind us  in many areas.

[240 is Back]

i'll assume you lost NO family members in this war.

correct.  and i'll accept that morally, i'm a piece of shit for supporting a war for oil and global positioning.  yeah, it's morally disgusting.  war was built on a lie - i dont think HH6 will even argue we really believed there were WMD.  He admits it was about the oil. 

And if i'd lost someone, i'm sure I'd feel different.  Just like if you'd lost someone in 911, you'd focus on that issue and the far bigger pile of evidence that points to inside job.  we all have compromises into what we believe and what we study.

[Decker]

correct.  and i'll accept that morally, i'm a piece of shit for supporting a war for oil and global positioning.  yeah, it's morally disgusting.  war was built on a lie - i dont think HH6 will even argue we really believed there were WMD.  He admits it was about the oil. 

And if i'd lost someone, i'm sure I'd feel different.  Just like if you'd lost someone in 911, you'd focus on that issue and the far bigger pile of evidence that points to inside job.  we all have compromises into what we believe and what we study.

So it goes without saying that you are not concerned with the latest estimate of 150,000 dead Iraqis...dead from the invasion.  Their right to a life is but a hindrance to our country's acquisitive success so they are expendable.  I paraphrase.

I don't think that my concern for them is empty emotional baggage attendant to bleeding heart liberals (the bleeding heart of Christ).

Since you've surrendered your humanity on this subject:  beneficial wealth for Iraqi life, how do you feel about torturing Iraq men, women, and children that don't adopt or endorse the US's plan for Iraq wholeheartedly (i.e., resisters)?

I know, I know, I'm pulling out the old speculative slippery slope argument.

[headhuntersix]

No i think they thought they were there. If they found em then we would not be talking about oil. Everybody thought they had em..The question really is..so what. Did they think he would sell em etc. No its about oil in the larger sense but they thought they had em.

[240 is Back]

No i think they thought they were there. If they found em then we would not be talking about oil. Everybody thought they had em..The question really is..so what. Did they think he would sell em etc. No its about oil in the larger sense but they thought they had em.

If they had them, we'd still be taking 80% of the oil.

If they had them, we still would have guarded the oil ministry while nat'l infrastructure crumbled.

And besides all that, Saddam DID submit to 99% of the UN sanctions, everything except his personal bathrooms and bedrooms.  24 hours before the attacks, he called in and surrendered to those things as well.  Didn't we put a cruise missile into that building? LMAO...

Did we really believe that saddam had WMD in his bedroom or in his toilet?
No.

Did he give us a reason to invade and take his oil?
Sure.

[kh300]

No.

We invaded unprovoked, based on faulty intelligence which was not only false, but did not warrant an invasion.

It will be seen as the worse decision made by an American president in history.

after discusing this with a few guys that dealt with the intel-fbi, i believe they were correct and the intel was right.

the theory that i believe is that saddam was afraid of an attack from iran. he knew they were growing, so he got them to believe he had wmd's. that's why he did all that shit to convince us.. but saddam wasnt prepared for the fact that the us was listening. if you look back at what happend and what led up to saddams actions, it makes sense.

and thats what saddam said in his testimony. he was afraid of iran, not the US. he thought the US was too busy with Afghanistan, that he was "off the hook".

[headhuntersix]

This pretty much whats coming out now. Much like in 1991 and his invasion of Kuwait, he misread what we'd do. He thought Iran was making gains militarily and read to move against him..he never thought, even with all of us sitting in Kuwait, that we'd come.

[CARTEL]

after discusing this with a few guys that dealt with the intel-fbi, i believe they were correct and the intel was right.

the theory that i believe is that saddam was afraid of an attack from iran. he knew they were growing, so he got them to believe he had wmd's. that's why he did all that shit to convince us.. but saddam wasnt prepared for the fact that the us was listening. if you look back at what happend and what led up to saddams actions, it makes sense.

and thats what saddam said in his testimony. he was afraid of iran, not the US. he thought the US was too busy with Afghanistan, that he was "off the hook".

You're making too much sense for the nut-jobs on this board.

[Hugo Chavez]

It is what it is.

We saw a bad guy in office and made up a reason to invade.
We took that motherfvcker over.
We took most of their oil, and put bases there.

Now we are thinking about doing it to their neighbor.

In terms of US economy & military strength, it was RIGHT.
In terms of morality, it was WRONG.

What is more important to you- US strength or morality?
As much as it pains me to say it, for me, US strength comes first.

So for me, the war was right.  If you put morality first, the war was wrong. 
There is no correct answer - it all depends on your mindset.

kill them all. die die die...

[mightymouse72]

after discusing this with a few guys that dealt with the intel-fbi, i believe they were correct and the intel was right.

the theory that i believe is that saddam was afraid of an attack from iran. he knew they were growing, so he got them to believe he had wmd's. that's why he did all that shit to convince us.. but saddam wasnt prepared for the fact that the us was listening. if you look back at what happend and what led up to saddams actions, it makes sense.

and thats what saddam said in his testimony. he was afraid of iran, not the US. he thought the US was too busy with Afghanistan, that he was "off the hook".

THANK YOU!!!

saddam hisself stated this before he was executed.  he wanted iran to think he had weapons.

240, please find another subject.  we all know your views.  which happens to be both sides.

[Decker]

That's terrific that we might have thought that Iraq had WMDs.

It is entirely irrelevant to Bush's call to attack the country.

But that belief is what Bush used to put Iraq on the table as a military target.

Why should the US attack a country on a belief that it had WMDs when there were WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ INSPECTING THE COUNTRY FOR WMDS?

It's a matter of what's the best evidence.

Is the best evidence for attack a belief, based in large part on cooked/mistaken/outdated information that Iraq has the WMDs?

Or is the best evidence provided by the expert WMD inspectors actually in the country finding no WMDs?

I think the answer is obvious.

[mightymouse72]

I think the answer is obvious.

yea, it's obvious.  we're all a bunch of dummies for discussing this.  it's the same crap, bush lied....blah blah.
get over it.

[240 is Back]

yea, it's obvious.  we're all a bunch of dummies for discussing this.  it's the same crap, bush lied....blah blah.
get over it.

you have low standards.

when your doctor, stockbroker, or boss lie to you... do you just bend over and decline lube?

[Decker]

yea, it's obvious.  we're all a bunch of dummies for discussing this.  it's the same crap, bush lied....blah blah.
get over it.

You are changing the subject.  It's not that Bush lied, (he did), it's that the best evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs was provided by the WMD inspectors and not our erroneous beliefs.

Now you exit the discussion claiming, "get over it" instead of addressing the issue at hand. 

Let me remind you that this is a discussion forum.  We discuss things.

[OzmO]

after discusing this with a few guys that dealt with the intel-fbi, i believe they were correct and the intel was right.

the theory that i believe is that saddam was afraid of an attack from iran. he knew they were growing, so he got them to believe he had wmd's. that's why he did all that shit to convince us.. but saddam wasnt prepared for the fact that the us was listening. if you look back at what happend and what led up to saddams actions, it makes sense.

and thats what saddam said in his testimony. he was afraid of iran, not the US. he thought the US was too busy with Afghanistan, that he was "off the hook".

Yes, very possible you are correct.

However, my stance on the war was that it was wrong to begin with even with incorrect conclusion of Iraq having WMD's. 

[Slapper]

It is what it is.

We saw a bad guy in office and made up a reason to invade.
We took that motherfvcker over.
We took most of their oil, and put bases there.

Now we are thinking about doing it to their neighbor.

In terms of US economy & military strength, it was RIGHT.
In terms of morality, it was WRONG.

What is more important to you- US strength or morality?
As much as it pains me to say it, for me, US strength comes first.

So for me, the war was right.  If you put morality first, the war was wrong. 
There is no correct answer - it all depends on your mindset.

Never mind the fact that war is never the answer or that ethics and morality come before "US strength".

Your message is pseudo-racist. That is the only reason I can come up with for you trying to argument two disparities as morals and US strength in the same sentence.

Bullshit at its worst.

[Camel Jockey]

No.

We invaded unprovoked, based on faulty intelligence which was not only false, but did not warrant an invasion.

It will be seen as the worse decision made by an American president in history.

Faulty intelligence lead to a lot of $$.. Exxon, BP and Haliburton to name a few sure got paid; as did the investment banks, all from oil demand..

Right maybe from an economic and military standpoint, but certainly not from a moral one. It's like breaking into a diminished family's house and taking their last heirlooms..

Giants trail by 3.. Eat dick, Cartel.