Should the us get involved in Iraq??

[Whos_ur_Buddha]

President Obama sent 300 troops into Iraq to train the forces there how to fight against the new terrorist threat, Some Americans think we should go to war others don't. Should the US go to war? Yes or no? Why?

[Vlerchan]

No they shouldn't.

Just, no.

[Gamma Male]

Isn't it tradition to wait until the next bush gets elected before we invade Iraq again?

[Sir Suomi]

Yes, this is going to be another Rwanda if we don't intervene soon. However, if you need further motivation, here's a tiny glimpse of what's happening over there.

Note: This is extremely graphic. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. I've given them a fair warning mods, so if you could refrain from putting it down that'd be great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTosGni1BwA

[Vlerchan]

Yes, this is going to be another Rwanda if we don't intervene soon.
By 'we' I presume you mean 'Iran', 'Syria', and all else directly concerned.

The US delving into the middle of a Shia-Sunni sectarian crisis is not going to help matters: there presence might even galvanise more Sunnis.

[Sir Suomi]

By 'we' I presume you mean 'Iran', 'Syria', and all else directly concerned.

The US delving into the middle of a Shia-Sunni sectarian crisis is not going to help matters: there presence might even galvanise more Sunnis.

I was thinking more along the lines of a coalition force, if the U.N would ever get off its ass, maybe we could.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

NO.

Let Iraq work out it's own problems.

[Magg]

NO. that's what i hate most about the US. let other countries deal with their own problems.

[Dalcourt]

Isn't it tradition to wait until the next bush gets elected before we invade Iraq again?

lol, yes that's true..

but seriously, the USA evaded Iraq and Obama then left it in a rather unstable situation, just to fulfill a promise to the people back home who wanted an end to it.
I'm always against meddling with other states affairs but in this case I feel that the USA are partly to blame that the terrorists could take over so easily and therefore should help to stabilize the situation be it in diplomatic ways or by sending troops.

[Harry Smith]

Isn't it tradition to wait until the next bush gets elected before we invade Iraq again?

Lool plus 100 rep-you've won this thread :)

Yes, this is going to be another Rwanda if we don't intervene soon. However, if you need further motivation, here's a tiny glimpse of what's happening over there.

Note: This is extremely graphic. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. I've given them a fair warning mods, so if you could refrain from putting it down that'd be great.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTosGni1BwA

Rwanda is never really understood by anyone in the west-we take such a stupid view that it was Tutsi vs Hutu when in fact that conflict was much bigger. Also in Rwanda you had the government carrying out the crimes out of fear of rebels where as in Iraq you have the opposite.

On that topic-this stuff happens every week in Africa. I didn't see anybody calling for a US lead attack when this happened in the DRC or central African Republic?

As I've said before going into Iraq and dropping democracy from 30,000 ft won't make it any better at all

[Ethe14]

NO! We don't need to be involved this time. Those 300 are more than enough, let them (Iraq) figure it out.

[Vlerchan]

I was thinking more along the lines of a coalition force, if the U.N would ever get off its ass, maybe we could.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

Though, I still feel that Iran et al. are perfectly capable of dealing with this.

[Southside]

No...We'd just be getting into a fierce sectarian/religious conflict that's been going on for hundreds of years.

Only reason I'd support us getting involved is if the militants threatened government buildings and embassies in Bagdad. Even then I'd only want an air war and missile launches from ships in the Persian Gulf

[Vlerchan]

Only reason I'd support us getting involved is if the militants threatened government buildings and embassies in Bagdad
They are.

They're approaching Bagdad now as I type this.

[Southside]

They are.

They're approaching Bagdad now as I type this.

Well until there on the city outskirts..we should hold off. Isn't our embassy there like a fortress or something?

[Vlerchan]

Isn't our embassy there like a fortress or something?
I have no idea. It doesn't seem (https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/iraq-embassy-1.jpg) so.

Obama's already sent men in to reinforce the embassy (like, 100), though I'm of the opinion (and I've seen it pushed elsewhere) that he's wanting to martyr them (i.e., they're all going to die, and he knows it) so he can get the public support on his side necessary to launch Iraq PIII. I'm generally quite cynical when it comes to US politics, though, so I might be way off, but I can't imagine why else he might have thought sending in that many men was a good idea: Bagdad's about to go to shit, and an extra hundred boots in the ground isn't going to make a difference.

[Southside]

I have no idea. It doesn't seem (https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/iraq-embassy-1.jpg) so.

Obama's already sent men in to reinforce the embassy (like, 100), though I'm of the opinion (and I've seen it pushed elsewhere) that he's wanting to martyr them (i.e., they're all going to die, and he knows it) so he can get the public support on his side necessary to launch Iraq PIII. I'm generally quite cynical when it comes to US politics, though, so I might be way off, but I can't imagine why else he might have thought sending in that many men was a good idea: Bagdad's about to go to shit, and an extra hundred boots in the ground isn't going to make a difference.

Looks like a fucking vacation spot lol.

And good theory, if it plays out that way then you'll officially be the smartest guy on VT

[Vlerchan]

And, if I'm wrong, I'll make sure to be accepting of my place as its greatest cynic.

[Sir Suomi]

Well until there on the city outskirts..we should hold off. Isn't our embassy there like a fortress or something?

And look how Benghazi turned out...

[Harry Smith]

Anyone remember this

http://spunkybong.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bush1.jpg

[thatcountrykid]

I say send troops to Baghdad and other important areas and hold em. Fight to protect gain a strong foothold then go on the offensive.

[Vlerchan]

Fight to protect gain a strong foothold then go on the offensive.
And what do you expect to happen then?

[thatcountrykid]

And what do you expect to happen then?

Fight. Push them back. Weaken them. Make them dread waking up and having to fight.

[Gamma Male]

Fight. Push them back. Weaken them. Make them dread waking up and having to fight.

Why just limit it to Iraq? Militant groups and pirates are murdering and oppressing people all over the world, particularly in Africa, so why limit it to just Iraq? Do you support invading Syria, The Congo, or Somalia? Y'know, go in, sweep the place of bad guys, give em some FREEDOM!

[thatcountrykid]

Why just limit it to Iraq? Militant groups and pirates are murdering and oppressing people all over the world, particularly in Africa, so why limit it to just Iraq? Do you support invading Syria, The Congo, or Somalia? Y'know, go in, sweep the place of bad guys, give em some FREEDOM!

It's up to them really what happens afterwards but rightnow they can't help themselves. I kinda know current situation in Somalia and Syria but I don't know what's happening in the Congo so I can't say.

[Left Now]

Once US intervened in Iraq and it just hecking blew up!Now let Iraq Government itself deal with "Daesh" or as you call it "ISIL".Although,this is not a Sunni-Shia conflict but actually a "Takfiri-non-Takfiri" crisis.

If US had a so-called right to intervene in Iraq,then Iran's right to aid Nuri Maliki's government directly and in military ways was even greater!

[Vlerchan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

Oh, for fuck sake. That's beyond ridiculous.

Fight. Push them back. Weaken them. Make them dread waking up and having to fight.
And how many men do you suggest the US commit to this inevitably futile effort?

[thatcountrykid]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

Oh, for fuck sake. That's beyond ridiculous.


And how many men do you suggest the US commit to this inevitably futile effort?

3 thousand-6 thousand.

[Abyssal Echo]

NO!
Let Iraq deal with it's own problems.

[Stronk Serb]

Iran is helping them and they got a pretty good military. This radical sect vs. non-radical sects is a pretty bad situation to be in and also I heard those savages are destroying Iraq's great historical heritage, like thrashing museums and destroying everything non-Islam related and destroying Shia shrines. And no, the US shouldn't go to war. Since gaining independence, they went to more wars then Serbia has in it's existence

[Harry Smith]

It's up to them really what happens afterwards but rightnow they can't help themselves. I kinda know current situation in Somalia and Syria but I don't know what's happening in the Congo so I can't say.

lOOOL-this sums it up for me. There's a reason you don't know what's going on in the congo-that's because the congo doesn't have vast quantities of cheap oil. You've had over 10 million people die in congo but no-one in the US even knows where it is on the map

Fight. Push them back. Weaken them. Make them dread waking up and having to fight.

Trust me-they'll be more than happy to kill some US troops. They will not be afraid, they know the terrain, they have heavy weaponry along with supply routes.

I love how people think warfare is as simple as saying 'do this' and then it will magically work

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/iraq-prisoner-mass-executions_n_5536398.html?ir=WorldPost

Looks like the brave Iraqi's that the US wants to fight for aren't actually so great-this is just like Vietnam. The US need to realize that like in Syria there isn't a 'good' and 'bad' side to this

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[thatcountrykid]

lOOOL-this sums it up for me. There's a reason you don't know what's going on in the congo-that's because the congo doesn't have vast quantities of cheap oil. You've had over 10 million people die in congo but no-one in the US even knows where it is on the map



Trust me-they'll be more than happy to kill some US troops. They will not be afraid, they know the terrain, they have heavy weaponry along with supply routes.

I love how people think warfare is as simple as saying 'do this' and then it will magically work

It's not al about fucking oil. I don't know about it cause I haven't seen it in the news or anywhere. Africa isn't gonna help its self anytime soon.

I know warfare isn't simple. I know it's hard. Yeah us troop would die as they already have and that's unfortunate but almost every soldier will say that they have no problem dying for what they do. Isis knows it's terrain and has supplies yes but if we cut those off and go gar on their ass we could do it.

There's only two ways to end the Middle East. Leave and le Isis win or wipe their ass of the globe.

[Harry Smith]

It's not al about fucking oil. I don't know about it cause I haven't seen it in the news or anywhere. Africa isn't gonna help its self anytime soon.

I know warfare isn't simple. I know it's hard. Yeah us troop would die as they already have and that's unfortunate but almost every soldier will say that they have no problem dying for what they do. Isis knows it's terrain and has supplies yes but if we cut those off and go gar on their ass we could do it.

There's only two ways to end the Middle East. Leave and le Isis win or wipe their ass of the globe.

It's been on the news-it's just that CNN and the rest don't talk about Africa because A) Americans don't understand B) Americans don't know where it is.
Blank stupid statements like the one you've made only prove this

Anyone with an understanding of geopolitics will know how bad Congo has been, the link between oil and intervention is pretty clear. Look at this...

Indian invade Goa-no oil involved-US don't intervene
Iraq invade Kuwait-Oil involved-US intervene
Pakistan develop nuclear bombs-no oil involved-US don't intervene
Iraq are said to developed Nuclear bombs-Oil involved-US intervene
Rebels massarce millions in congo, raping, plundering and looting-no oil involved-US don't intervene.

The US/NATO have a great history fighting insurgencies such as Isis

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html

almost every soldier will say that they have no problem dying for what they do

So because you have soldiers fighting you might as well let them die. Why not just strap bombs them and make them charge. They're happy to die right

Leave and le Isis win or wipe their ass of the globe

Lol-advocating genocide is fun right?

[thatcountrykid]

It's been on the news-it's just that CNN and the rest don't talk about Africa because A) Americans don't understand B) Americans don't know where it is.
Blank stupid statements like the one you've made only prove this

Anyone with an understanding of geopolitics will know how bad Congo has been, the link between oil and intervention is pretty clear. Look at this...

Indian invade Goa-no oil involved-US don't intervene
Iraq invade Kuwait-Oil involved-US intervene
Pakistan develop nuclear bombs-no oil involved-US don't intervene
Iraq are said to developed Nuclear bombs-Oil involved-US intervene
Rebels massarce millions in congo, raping, plundering and looting-no oil involved-US don't intervene.

The US/NATO have a great history fighting insurgencies such as Isis

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html



So because you have soldiers fighting you might as well let them die. Why not just strap bombs them and make them charge. They're happy to die right



Lol-advocating genocide is fun right?


They're not happy to die. I did that most would say that if the time came to die they would do so.

I'm not advocating "genocide"

[Harry Smith]

They're not happy to die. I did that most would say that if the time came to die they would do so.

I'm not advocating "genocide"

Lol so you now accept the US only get involded in the last 20 years if oil/it's supply line is threatened?

Almost every soldier will say that they have no problem dying.

That pretty much equates to happy to die, do you know that just because you have soldiers doesn't mean you have to use them

wipe their ass of the globe.

Your advocating the killing off over 7,000, along with their supporters despite the fact they've committed no crime against the united states. They may be extremist Islamic terrorists but you can't simply kill everyone who disagrees with you. America need to understand that

[Sir Suomi]

So I guess everyone's cool with the ISIS just shooting random civilians on the streets? K then.

[Gamma Male]

So I guess everyone's cool with the ISIS just shooting random civilians on the streets? K then.

Your views are incredibly inconsistent. You say we need to step in to defeat the Iraqi terrorist groups and help the civilians, but why just Iraq?

I can list off dozens of countries where atrocities are being committed by pirates, rebels, militias, corrupt governments, etc, but nobody cares about any of them. The only reason neocons care about Iraq so much is because of, you guessed it, oil.

[Harry Smith]

So I guess everyone's cool with the ISIS just shooting random civilians on the streets? K then.

So I guess everyon'e cool with the Iraqi police just shooting random civilans on the streets? K then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/iraq-prisoner-mass-executions_n_5536398.html?ir=WorldPost

I guess everyone's cool with the US shooting random Vietnamese people in their villages?

I guess everyone's cool with the US bombing a wedding convoy in Yemen?

I guess everyone's cool with US funded terrorists blowing up commercial flights in Cuba?

I guess everyone's cool with the US invading, attacking, bombing and killing over 100,000 Iraqi's in 2003 for WMD's that never existed.

[thatcountrykid]

Lol so you now accept the US only get involded in the last 20 years if oil/it's supply line is threatened?



That pretty much equates to happy to die, do you know that just because you have soldiers doesn't mean you have to use them



Your advocating the killing off over 7,000, along with their supporters despite the fact they've committed no crime against the united states. They may be extremist Islamic terrorists but you can't simply kill everyone who disagrees with you. America need to understand that

I think you need to understand.

I'm done. It's pointless arguing with you.

[Harry Smith]

I think you need to understand.

I'm done. It's pointless arguing with you.

Nice debating right there, I seem to have a skill to getting right wingers to pack up on debates. Wonder if I can bottle it and sell it?

[thatcountrykid]

Nice debating right there, I seem to have a skill to getting right wingers to pack up on debates. Wonder if I can bottle it and sell it?

I'm just not gonna waste my time on you. I'm not leaving the debate or the subject. I'm just done with you.

[Harry Smith]

I'm just not gonna waste my time on you. I'm not leaving the debate or the subject. I'm just done with you.

Do you accept that the US only consistently intervenes in regions that have large amounts of oil in the last 20 years?

[Gamma Male]

Do you accept that the US only consistently intervenes in regions that have large amounts of oil in the last 20 years?

Or herion.coughcoughciacoughcough

[Stronk Serb]

So I guess everyon'e cool with the Iraqi police just shooting random civilans on the streets? K then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/iraq-prisoner-mass-executions_n_5536398.html?ir=WorldPost

I guess everyone's cool with the US shooting random Vietnamese people in their villages?

I guess everyone's cool with the US bombing a wedding convoy in Yemen?

I guess everyone's cool with US funded terrorists blowing up commercial flights in Cuba?

I guess everyone's cool with the US invading, attacking, bombing and killing over 100,000 Iraqi's in 2003 for WMD's that never existed.

You forgot bombing bridges while civilians were crossing. They did that here.

[Gamma Male]

You forgot bombing bridges while civilians were crossing. They did that here.

Then there's always torturing innocent people, poisoning south American children so Monsanto can grow mutant corn at ultra low prices, and imprisoning disproportionately large numbers of poor black people on nonviolent drug charges.

[Left Now]

Gentlemen,let's just get hecking back to the topic OK?

I am totally against any Foreign-Western-Eastern-Russian-American-Chinese-British-French-intervention in Iraq!Actually against any Outside-Of-Neighborhood-intervention in the area!

SO NO US IN IRAQ?Am I clear?

[Stronk Serb]

Gentlemen,let's just get hecking back to the topic OK?

I am totally against any Foreign-Western-Eastern-Russian-American-Chinese-British-French-intervention in Iraq!Actually against any Outside-Of-Neighborhood-intervention in the area!

SO NO US IN IRAQ?Am I clear?

Leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners. How much is Iran helping the Iraqi government, like how many troops have they commited and stuff like that?

[Stronk Serb]

Then there's always torturing innocent people, poisoning south American children so Monsanto can grow mutant corn at ultra low prices, and imprisoning disproportionately large numbers of poor black people on nonviolent drug charges.

Oh oh, what about Monsanto's chemical agents which killed leaves on trees but were also cancerogenous (dunno if that's the term, they cause cancer) which were dropped on Vietnam far and wide? That soil is poisoned now.

[thatcountrykid]

Do you accept that the US only consistently intervenes in regions that have large amounts of oil in the last 20 years?

No I dont

[Gamma Male]

No I dont

It's not always about oil, but the fact is that in the last 60 or so years the only times the US has intervened in foreign affairs, we've done it for our own benefit. Or rather, the government has done it for the benefit of the corporations that de facto control them.m

There are tons and tons of people dying and being oppressed all over the globe, but the only instances when we actually step in to "help" are when we have something to gain.

We started the Iraq war because Iraq has vast reserves of oil which were being threatened my Islamic militants who twenty years ago we helped breed.

Meanwhile in Africa things are just as fucked up as ever, but nobody seems to care. I guarantee you, if it were discovered that Somalia or The Congo had vast hidden oil reserves the very next week some impassioned GOP speaker would be getting up and making a speech about how it's our responsibility to help them.


No, not by sending in UN peacekeepers or donating aid, but by going in and blowing a bunch of shit up.

[thatcountrykid]

It's not always about oil, but the fact is that in the last 60 or so years the only times the US has intervened in foreign affairs, we've done it for our own benefit. Or rather, the government has done it for the benefit of the corporations that de facto control them.m

There are tons and tons of people dying and being oppressed all over the globe, but the only instances when we actually step in to "help" are when we have something to gain.

We started the Iraq war because Iraq has vast reserves of oil which were being threatened my Islamic militants who twenty years ago we helped breed.

Meanwhile in Africa things are just as fucked up as ever, but nobody seems to care. I guarantee you, if it were discovered that Somalia or The Congo had vast hidden oil reserves the very next week some impassioned GOP speaker would be getting up and making a speech about how it's our responsibility to help them.


No, not by sending in UN peacekeepers or donating aid, but by going in and blowing a bunch of shit up.

Have you forgotten that the us did intervene in somalia

[Gamma Male]

Have you forgotten that the us did intervene in somalia

[Quote]Have you forgotten that the us did intervene in somalia

The first United Nation Operation on Somalia (UNOSOM I) was carried primarily by United Nation officials in attempt to provide and secure humanitarian relief within Somalia, as a reaction to the eruption and escalation of the civil war. The primary objective was to monitor the first ceasefire of the Somali Civil war. It was established in April 1992 and ran until its responsibility was assumed by the US led Unified Task Force (UNITAF). The operation lasted from December 9, 1992 till May 3, 1993. On May 4, 1993 the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II), also supported by US troops, assumed official command and responsibility for the operation. UNOSOM II abruptly ended March 3, 1994, following the broadcast of bodies of dead American soldiers being dragged on the streets of Mogadishu

Prior to the passing of Resolution 794, the United States had offerred its troops to the United Nation. After its adoption President George H. W. Bush initiated the UNTAF in Somalia. While US action did not occur until after the passing of the Resolution, US interest in Somalia was early on in the Somali war. Prior to the collapse of the Somali government in 1991, 4 major oil petroleum giants had agreements with Somalia giving companies the rights to the most promising concessions (Fineman). Companies such as Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were hoping that Bush would make the decision to send troops to Somalia, as it will help protect their investments (Chamberlain).

It has been theorized that the former Texan- oil man, President George Bush, had personal reasons for wanting intervention in Somalia. When in the mid-1980s it was disclosed that there was large amount of oil in northern Somalia, Bushed urged American oil companies to exploit those reserve (Chamberlain). After the enactment of Operation Restore Hope, Conoco played an intimate part in U.S government's role in humanitarian efforts (Project Censored). Questions begun to raise on if Bush's effort were to restore hope, or to restore oil.

[Harry Smith]

The fight against piracy in the region also has nothing to do with protecting oil Tankers and other ships that pass through the middle east as well

[Sir Suomi]

Your views are incredibly inconsistent. You say we need to step in to defeat the Iraqi terrorist groups and help the civilians, but why just Iraq?

I can list off dozens of countries where atrocities are being committed by pirates, rebels, militias, corrupt governments, etc, but nobody cares about any of them. The only reason neocons care about Iraq so much is because of, you guessed it, oil.

i. Terrorism and tyranny should be stopped around the world, but it seems like the United States has to be the one to stop it, because most other countries are apparently incapable of lending a helping hand, which by now really doesn't surprise me.

ii. You really must be dumb to actually think that Iraq has anything to do with our oil consumption. If we really cared that much about oil, we'd be more inclined to go into Africa than Iraq. Iraq only supplies the United States 4.8% of our total oil, and we're actually importing less oil than we were before we invaded. So you're argument is invalid on so many levels.

Lol so you now accept the US only get involded in the last 20 years if oil/it's supply line is threatened?

So I guess everyon'e cool with the Iraqi police just shooting random civilans on the streets? K then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...l?ir=WorldPost

I guess everyone's cool with the US shooting random Vietnamese people in their villages?

I guess everyone's cool with the US bombing a wedding convoy in Yemen?

I guess everyone's cool with US funded terrorists blowing up commercial flights in Cuba?

I guess everyone's cool with the US invading, attacking, bombing and killing over 100,000 Iraqi's in 2003 for WMD's that never existed.






i. You Brits really don't know anything, do you? The only real big oil partner in the Middle East we have is Saudi Arabia, and they only give us 8.1% of our total imports.

ii. I'm certainly not, but everyone's afraid of another Afghanistan.

iii. That war has been over for a long time, I don't see many people bitching about Dresden these days.

iv. Mistakes happen, and that was a tragic one, but that's a heavily populated enemy area, and they were mistaken for Al-Qaeda, even though there was a security official who did state that there may have also been Al-Qaeda militants within the convoy. At least we're not doing this on purpose. I mean, honestly if you're comparing the United States accidental collateral damage to Islamic militants going out on the streets shooting random people on the streets, you're in the need of serious mental evaluation.

v. It was a possibility that they still existed. I personally know a Lieutenant Colonel who served in the Iraqi-Conflict, and he told me that there were reports of unmarked military trucks fleeing out of the country in the early stages of the war.

[Vlerchan]

You Brits really don't know anything, do you? The only real big oil partner in the Middle East we have is Saudi Arabia, and they only give us 8.1% of our total imports.
It's not just about what the US is importing. That actually has little to do with it.

Even if the US isn't importing themselves more oil on the global markets means lower oil prices for everyone - and so lower business operating costs.

[Harry Smith]

.
i. You Brits really don't know anything, do you? The only real big oil partner in the Middle East we have is Saudi Arabia, and they only give us 8.1% of our total imports.

ii. I'm certainly not, but everyone's afraid of another Afghanistan.

iii. That war has been over for a long time, I don't see many people bitching about Dresden these days.

iv. Mistakes happen, and that was a tragic one, but that's a heavily populated enemy area, and they were mistaken for Al-Qaeda, even though there was a security official who did state that there may have also been Al-Qaeda militants within the convoy. At least we're not doing this on purpose. I mean, honestly if you're comparing the United States accidental collateral damage to Islamic militants going out on the streets shooting random people on the streets, you're in the need of serious mental evaluation.

v. It was a possibility that they still existed. I personally know a Lieutenant Colonel who served in the Iraqi-Conflict, and he told me that there were reports of unmarked military trucks fleeing out of the country in the early stages of the war.

Lol 'you brits' I wish I talked for the entire nation. But sure nice job at sounding adult and edgy. This brit actually knows a far bit about the Middle east.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most corrupt abusive regimes in the Middle East. I wouldn't take oil of them for free, lets build up much more effective long term projects like Nuclear, wave and wind power. We don't need to become reliant on the Middle east-has everyone forgotten about the 1973 oil crisis? That fucked up the 70s! I'm sure Vlerchan will have info about the oil in the region-that's his brief.

Another Afghanistan? You mean when the US invaded, occupied and installed a corrupt government to ensure that an oil pipeline could be build? Cool story.

Lol Dresden was pretty bad to be honest-however unlike the drone strikes and My Lai Dresden didn't actually breach international law IMO-that's laregly because the 1907 Hague convention was a piece of piss. Dresden was regretable but unlike My Lai it didn't break international law. I'm happy to admit Dresden was terrible-are you happy to say the same about My lai?

Oh yeah mental health jokes-everyone loves them. It's been proven by nearly every single academic that the US has supported, funded and aided terrorism since the 1950's alone. These terrorist have killed many innocents on the streets-in fact many of the current Al-Qaeda lot were trained how to do so by the CIA. But sure Russians aren't humans are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455

Several CIA-linked anti-Castro Cuban exiles and members of the Venezuelan secret police DISIP were implicated by the evidence. Political complications quickly arose when Cuba accused the US government of being an accomplice to the attack. CIA documents released in 2005 indicate that the agency "had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb a Cubana airliner.

A declassified CIA document dated October 12, 1976, a few days after bombing, quotes Posada as saying, a few days after a plate fund-raising meeting for CORU held around September 15, "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner... Orlando has the details"


v. It was a possibility that they still existed. I personally know a Lieutenant Colonel who served in the Iraqi-Conflict, and he told me that there were reports of unmarked military trucks fleeing out of the country in the early stages of the war.

I know someone who claimed Hitler is living in a cave in Argentina. He saw a car leave Germany in 1945

[Sir Suomi]

It's not just about what the US is importing. That actually has little to do with it.

Even if the US isn't importing themselves more oil on the global markets means lower oil prices for everyone - and so lower business operating costs.

Or maybe we finally realized Saddam wasn't the best guy, and decided to stop him from starting a genocide against the Kurds, and disrupting the peace within the Middle East?

[Harry Smith]

and decided to stop him from starting a genocide

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/08/26/us-supported-iraqs-use-of-chemical-weapons-even-as-it-inches-to-war-with-syria-on-lesser-allegations/

I'm doubtful, to say the least.

He wasn't disrupting the 'peace' when America invaded either. The Halabja chemical attack was in 1988.

US didn't care one bit about the kurds, they just used it as an excuse after the WMD's weren't found

[Vlerchan]

Or maybe we finally realized Saddam wasn't the best guy, and decided to stop him from starting a genocide against the Kurds, and disrupting the peace within the Middle East?
I'm doubtful, to say the least.

He wasn't disrupting the 'peace' when America invaded either. The Halabja chemical attack was in 1988.

[From article:] Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran. The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
I actually didn't know this.

Heh. That explains a lot.

[Harry Smith]

I'm doubtful, to say the least.

He wasn't disrupting the 'peace' when America invaded either. The Halabja chemical attack was in 1988.


I actually didn't know this.

Heh. That explains a lot.

TBH this what was shifted me away from Blair/Bush line in Iraq. You can't condone chemical attacks when your enemy use it but turn your back when your allies use it

[Sir Suomi]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/08/26/us-supported-iraqs-use-of-chemical-weapons-even-as-it-inches-to-war-with-syria-on-lesser-allegations/



US didn't care one bit about the kurds, they just used it as an excuse after the WMD's weren't found

The Cold War dates were a mess, there's no denying that. I'm not defending the actions that were made then, but I'm defending our current actions, and that was taking down a brutal dictator that we knew had chemical weapons, and was believed to possibly have WMD's, or have the means to easily make them.

I'm doubtful, to say the least.

He wasn't disrupting the 'peace' when America invaded either. The Halabja chemical attack was in 1988.



He had the capability to, and we knew it. Our two most important allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, were threatened, and we thought it was within our interests to keep them secure.

[Harry Smith]

, but I'm defending our current actions, and that was taking down a brutal dictator that we knew had chemical weapons, and was believed to possibly have WMD's, or have the means to easily make them.

He had the capability to, and we knew it. Our two most important allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, were threatened, and we thought it was within our interests to keep them secure.

Okay can you see how hypocritical your being?

You oppose Saddam because he's a brutal dictator-but you support Saudi Arabia which is also a brutal dicatorship

You oppose him having Chemical weapons although the US gave them to him

You oppose Saddam using them against the Kurds-but you support him using them against Iranian old men despite it clearly being a war crime under the Geneva protocol. You're either against Chemical weapons on the whole or your in favour. Your either against dictatorship or your in favour of it. You can't pick and choose depending on which country you want to destroy

This is beyond laughable, even for the US

[Vlerchan]

He had the capability to, and we knew it.
Again, I'm doubtful of this. Iraq striking out at either of these two countries was highly unlikely at the time.

Also, it's on record that both the then chairmen of the FED and Australian FM admitted that it was of importance that Iraqi oil was secured.

[Harry Smith]

Again, I'm doubtful of this. Iraq striking out at either of these two countries was highly unlikely at the time.

Also, it's on record that both the then chairmen of the FED and Australian FM admitted that it was of importance that Iraqi oil was secured.

Even Iraq wouldn't attack Israel-Saddam wasn't an idiot. There's a reason he backed away from Saudi Arabia in the Gulf war-the US threatened him with Nukes if he attacked. It's laughable to invade a country on the basis that they may have the ability to attack someone.

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

[Baseball1999]

[/QUOTE]but seriously, the USA evaded Iraq and Obama then left it in a rather unstable situation, just to fulfill a promise to the people back home who wanted an end to it.
I'm always against meddling with other states affairs but in this case I feel that the USA are partly to blame that the terrorists could take over so easily and therefore should help to stabilize the situation be it in diplomatic ways or by sending troops.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree

[Harry Smith]

but seriously, the USA evaded Iraq and Obama then left it in a rather unstable situation, just to fulfill a promise to the people back home who wanted an end to it.
I'm always against meddling with other states affairs but in this case I feel that the USA are partly to blame that the terrorists could take over so easily and therefore should help to stabilize the situation be it in diplomatic ways or by sending troops.
Completely agree[/QUOTE]

Stabilize? What like the US stabilized the situation in 2003. The answer isn't to send more troops, do you really think the terrorists will simply give up once they see the US flag

[Southside]

Completely agree

Stabilize? What like the US stabilized the situation in 2003. The answer isn't to send more troops, do you really think the terrorists will simply give up once they see the US flag[/QUOTE]

Your a smart guy..I don't know why people think as soon as we or a coalition comes in the bad guys are just automatically going to put down their weapons and drink tea.

I feel bad for saying this but...Don't you think Iraq was better off under Saddam?