Except people don't always think logically. Most normal humans will always have something that they want but can't have, regardless of how badly the know they'll never get it.
Most Americans don't seem to understand the thorough mess their government and armed forces made in Iraq.
Of course the Iraqis wanted to be rid of Saddam Hussein - he was a brutal dictator who imprisoned and tortured those who dissented against his regime.
If the USA had simply toppled Saddam and then just left, leaving the Iraqis to govern themselves without political and military interference, there wouldn't have been anywhere near the terrible bloodshed and violence that has occurred over too many years.
The Iraqis and most of the rest of the world were quick to see that the real reason the USA invaded Iraq was a cynical grab for oil. (It was categorically proven that it was known prior to the invasion that there were no WMDs or links to Al Quaeda).
It was for this reason that the heroic Iraqi people resisted the invasion of their nation.
The USA likes to present itself as the good-guy world policeman, but the unfortunate truth is that it never actually intervenes unless there are direct benefits to itself.
If the USA had simply toppled Saddam and then just left, leaving the Iraqis to govern themselves without political and military interference, there wouldn't have been anywhere near the terrible bloodshed and violence that has occurred over too many years.
Uh if we just left then someone else would have taken Saddam's place resulting in the same actions with a different face. As to that oil thing Id like to see proof too.
I agree with commander dude 7...What we were doing is trying to make them a more stable country. I do think its about time to get out of the middle east though
[quote](It was categorically proven that it was known prior to the invasion that there were no WMDs or links to Al Quaeda).
i'd like to see proof of that[/quote]
I think a certain quote "sexed up claims about WMD in Iraq to justify an invasion", from a certain Tony Blair, would suffice. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard may also have made admissions on this count, making that two of the three major participants in the "Coalition of the Willing". Bush would never admit to such a thing, of course, his vested interest in this matter was far more personal.
[quote] The Bush Adminstration, not bothering to dig deeper, believed Saddam and used that to justify moving in.
they gave him chance after chance to tell them what kind of weapons he had, and he never told them, i personally think Bush was justified[/quote]
You don't really think this is the extent of the matter, do you? The scenario is like interrogation under torture: all it really does is get you either nowhere, or false information. In this case it got nowhere.
I can't be bothered typing it all out again so a link to my other post summing up the situation and its implication will have to do.
After doing a bit of research i'm not finding anything that says Bush knew for sure that there weren't WMDs... other people said that they didnt think stockpiles of weapons existed, didnt think WMDs would be found, etc. nobody said Bush knew there weren't WMDs. I still dont have my proof
It really doesnt matter if there was WMDs... there was still a brutal dictator in power who could easily have terrorists attack the US... Thinking there were WMDs just made the situation worse
saying that he could easily have terrorist attack the US is an exaggeration, it is a common misconseption that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was beacuse of terrorism, there was in fact little or no Iraqi involvement in 9 11, they trained in pakistan and afghanistan, there were alos very few (if any) Iraqi citizens involved in the planning oor execution of the attack
saying that he could easily have terrorist attack the US is an exaggeration, it is a common misconseption that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was beacuse of terrorism, there was in fact little or no Iraqi involvement in 9 11, they trained in pakistan and afghanistan, there were alos very few (if any) Iraqi citizens involved in the planning oor execution of the attack
Jeez where do I start. Okay. Now everyone knows the government is hush hush about this kind of stuff. So I'll say what I can. If you believe that Iraq isn't capable of a terrorist attack you are quite incorrect. Just look at the Oklahoma city Bombing. There has been a bunch of controversy surrounding this event in regards to outside sources helping Timonthy McVeigh. Many believe that he was not capable of building the complex device itself, furthermore it was extremely similar to the device used in the first World Trade Center bombing. Now it's common knowledge that Ramzi Yousef was behind the first World Trade Center Bombing, and he has distinct ties to Iraqi intelligence. Furthermore in the time preceding the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh made numerous trips to the Phillipines where Yousef was staying at the time. I won't go into that much detail, but you are quite mistaken if you think Iraq had nothing to do with 20th and 21st century terrorist attacks.
I think it's just his excuse for his war. Still, we didn't find any proofs that those WMDs even existed.
Even beyond that, you have to remember our history with Iraq, and the fact that they had one of the most comprehensive chemical weapons programs. Even though they don't have WMD's they still posed a threat to us.
