Was invading Iraq necessary?
Thread Starter
Senior Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Vehicle: 2003 Accent
Seeing as Egypt caused a chain reaction of protests and people trying to overthrow their governments, did we waste millions of dollars trying to bring democracy to Iraq when it might've happened anyways?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
From: Washington D.C.
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
You decide!
From Rumsfeld himself:
However, intelligence reports -- now shown to have been false -- that Iraq possessed WMDs were the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said.
"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."
He criticized the source known as "Curveball" -- an Iraqi defector who admitted his claims that Iraq possessed WMDs were false -- but stopped short of condemning the U.S. intelligence community.
"The intelligence community talks to hundreds of people," Rumsfeld said. "They have human assets, such as this man. Some are honest, some are dishonest. Some do it for money, some do it for self aggrandizement. Some do it, apparently, to lie."
From Rumsfeld himself:
However, intelligence reports -- now shown to have been false -- that Iraq possessed WMDs were the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said.
"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."
He criticized the source known as "Curveball" -- an Iraqi defector who admitted his claims that Iraq possessed WMDs were false -- but stopped short of condemning the U.S. intelligence community.
"The intelligence community talks to hundreds of people," Rumsfeld said. "They have human assets, such as this man. Some are honest, some are dishonest. Some do it for money, some do it for self aggrandizement. Some do it, apparently, to lie."
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,881
Likes: 0
From: Huntsville, AL
Vehicle: 2001/Hyundai/Tiburon
Absolutely, and for 2 huge reasons:
1. Saddam was hugely violent. Many, many people were killed under his rule. As in over half a million people. People seem to have forgotten this altogether. And the people killed weren't just militants; it was many civilians and those who opposed him. Not as many people as Hitler or Stalin, but entirely too many.
2. Saddam had WMDs. No we didn't find them. Yes EVERYONE believed he had thim. Everyone, including the Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, Bush, etc. It wasn't after the invasion that many of them flipped their stance and said "We were deceived!!!!". That's childish.
1. Saddam was hugely violent. Many, many people were killed under his rule. As in over half a million people. People seem to have forgotten this altogether. And the people killed weren't just militants; it was many civilians and those who opposed him. Not as many people as Hitler or Stalin, but entirely too many.
2. Saddam had WMDs. No we didn't find them. Yes EVERYONE believed he had thim. Everyone, including the Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, Bush, etc. It wasn't after the invasion that many of them flipped their stance and said "We were deceived!!!!". That's childish.
Super Moderator


Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
You wanna guess how many people have died in Iraq since we invaded? More than under Saddam. Wanna guess how many Americans would have died if we hadn't invaded? Pretty close to none.
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
From: Washington D.C.
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
Rumsfeld said if the WMD's weren't faked, we wouldn't have gone in period, independent of how many people Saddam has killed. Bottom line was it wasn't our problem. People forget all about Blackwater. War is H U G E business paid for by the taxpayers. Is three trillion dollars worth a few lives and some emotions? Sure, why not?
I also agree that the casualties after the invasion have exceeded any number of previous casualties. To me it's not a question of eliminating the aggressor at all costs, it is how many casualties can we prevent and preventing casualties wasn't a part of Bush administration's agenda.
I also agree that the casualties after the invasion have exceeded any number of previous casualties. To me it's not a question of eliminating the aggressor at all costs, it is how many casualties can we prevent and preventing casualties wasn't a part of Bush administration's agenda.
what seriously kills me about that whole situtaion and it has since 2001 is the world looks at us as the world peace keeper, sends us to do the dirty work ( along with smaller armies from smaller countries, nothing the size of our military) and then we have to deal with rules of engagement that the UN have deemed "rules of war".
if we have to deal with rules of war, we never win. hell,vietnam was a good vision of that one. to this day there are idiots over there making crude bombs just to mame. one persons actions speak for a nation IMO. time to get out and stop helping every damn nation that is having a crisis just so we can keep either a military base there or a consolate.
yeah, i may be wrong on alot of things i have just said but that is how i feel. i have really been thinking about moving out of country, even off continent, just for a breath of fresh air.
if we have to deal with rules of war, we never win. hell,vietnam was a good vision of that one. to this day there are idiots over there making crude bombs just to mame. one persons actions speak for a nation IMO. time to get out and stop helping every damn nation that is having a crisis just so we can keep either a military base there or a consolate.
yeah, i may be wrong on alot of things i have just said but that is how i feel. i have really been thinking about moving out of country, even off continent, just for a breath of fresh air.




